Cites

Entry

Date

Ableism K

Tournament: Greenhill | Round: 4 | Opponent: KAPS BT | Judge: AdegokeRage and anger is a tool not accessible to disabled body- the unintellibility ignores the real suffering of those with disabilities. For people with illnesses like schizophrenia that unintellibility scars them on a daily basis. Unintellibility is the violence of individuals who may not be able to speak, people who stutter. To say this is to elave intact things that are violent to people.This is dehumanizing because it categorizes and stereotypes all disabilities, its privileged academia devoid of real world application its performative gibberish with no solvencySherry, Prof. Sociology @ University of Toledo, 2013 Mark SherryMark Sherry is a brain injury survivor and Associate Professor of Sociology at The University of Toledo.The Feminist Wire, November 2013, Crip Politics? Just … No, November 23, 2013, By Mark SherryIt would have...oppressive or offensive.Thus, the alternative is to reject the aff to reject the ableist representation they read. The ROB is to challenge ableist assumptions within debate- we have an ethical obligation to do this.Berube 03 (Michael Berube, Paterno Family Professor in Literature at Pennsylvania State University, “Citizenship and Disability,” AlterNet, May 1, 2003, http:www.alternet.org/story/15809/citizenship_and_disability)Leftists and liberals...all of us.

10/26/18

Black Feminism K

Tournament: Meadows | Round: 1 | Opponent: Kamiak NB | Judge: Leah Clark-VillanuevaThe central question of oppression is marginalization. This marginalization happens through vectors of race, gender and sexuality.The ROB is to endorse the debater who minimizes material oppression. We have an ethical obligation to begin with Black feminism as a framework for understanding marginalization.

In 1972, when Michel Foucault was asked, “Do you know of a model prison?,” he responded: The problem is not a model prison or the abolition of prisons. Currently, in our system, marginalization is effected by prisons. This marginalization will not automatically disappear by abolishing the prison. Society would quite simply institute another means. The problem is the following: to offer a critique of the system that explains the process by which contemporary society pushes a portion of the population to the margins. Voil à . 1Throughout the GIP documents, Foucault and his coauthors argue that “none of us is sure to escape the prison” because the police and prison are so unimaginably expansive—physically, discursively, and epistemologically—that one is always already ontologically “marked by police custody.” 2 In this formulation, the prison is more than an institution composed of cages, corridors, and guard towers; it is also a system of affects, desires, discourses, and ideas that make the prison possible. Thus, the prison captures not just bodies, but also feelings, desires, and forms of knowledge. The prison could disappear tomorrow and the types of power that give rise to its reign could live on in other forms such as the regimes we call freedom, rights, and the state or structures like settler-colonialism, heteropatriarchy, and white supremacy.For Foucault, it is not only the prison that must disappear, but also the “margins.” The question for theorists of the prison and anti-prison activists is how to adequately grasp these systems of “marginalization.” We can position Foucault’s call to theorize the expansive forms of power that inaugurate and animate the prison within the historical and “psychic terrain” of Black feminism, and women of color feminism more broadly. 3 As Chela Sandoval has observed, the work of thinkers like Foucault, Jacques Derrida, Frederic Jameson, and Roland Barthes share “lines of force and affinity” and contain the “decolonizing influences” of the formation she calls “U.S. third world feminism.” 4 So, while the corpus of Foucault’s work has been criticized and expanded because it at times did not consider processes of valuation and devaluation like colonialism, slavery, patriarchy, and white supremacy, Black feminism emerged at the same historical moment as Foucault’s work to take these formations as its condition of possibility and as foundational to its grammar.Black feminism—and radical and revolutionary Black feminisms on which this chapter focuses—coalesced in new ways in the 1970s to name the types of marginalization that other modes of thought rendered unthinkable and unknowable. Most critically, Black feminism understands race, gender, and sexuality not as static categories of identification but as processes that produce value and disposability for individuals, populations, and forms of knowledge. 5 As a mode of culture, thought, and action, Black feminism emerged from the margins to theorize the production of the margins. Indeed, since Sojourner Truth analyzed the racialized and gendered production of the category “woman” and its relationship to the social death of chattel slavery, Black feminism has worked to name the forms of regulatory marginalization produced by the state, but also by radical, revolutionary, and intellectual formations like (white) feminism, Black nationalism, abolitionism, queer politics, postmodernism, post-structuralism, and the left more broadly.We can thus understand Black feminism as providing a pathway for thinking through the systems of marginalization that authorize the racialized and gendered terror of the prison—one that complements and exceeds the theories of Foucault and the GIP. In other words, Black feminist theories of the prison are essential to understanding the systems of marginalization that Foucault argued produce the prison. Indeed, the critiques of the prison advanced by many scholars of incarceration often do not comprehend the forms of devaluation that render poor women of color and queer and trans people of color vulnerable to the power that makes the prison possible. Black feminism emerged, in part, because formations like Black nationalism and white feminism could not theorize the forms of power that produced human disposability through the racialization of gender, sexuality, and capital. These movements often could not think of race as gendered and gender and sexuality as racialized, and thus failed to comprehend the assemblages of power that animate the prison. For example, in Eleanor Holmes Norton’s essay, “For Sadie and Maude,” included in the 1969 “Black Woman’s Manifesto” pamphlet distributed by the Third World Women’s Alliance, Norton writes, “Some subjects are so complex, so unyielding of facile insight, that it will not do to think about them in the ordinary way.” 6 The “ordinary way” was an epistemological collusion between statist epistemologies, “white women revolutionaries,” and Black nationalism that failed to name or comprehend the “predestined half-life of the black woman in this country.” 7 Norton and the other contributors to the “Black Woman’s Manifesto” worked to theorize how “the afterlife of slavery,” heteropatriarchy, and capitalism produced new forms of human disposability in the moment after the civil rights reforms of the mid-1960s. 8 These regimes of value and valuelessness were foundational to the rise of what Dylan Rodr í guez calls the US prison regime. 9

Their analysis of domination is wrong. If domination is merely about the ability of the powerful to define the meaning of the lives of the less powerful, then we would have no understanding of internalized oppression. The erotics of power can only be rendered intelligible by black feminism, which the aff does not engage in. Collins 09 (Patricia Hill Collins, Distinguished University Professor of Sociology at the University of Maryland, College Park “Black Feminist Thought in the Matrix of Domination” http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45a/252.html)Multiple Levels of Domination In addition to being structured along axes such as race, gender, and social class, the matrix of domination is structured on several levels. People experience and resist oppression on three levels: the level of personal biography; the group or community level of the cultural context created by race, class, and gender; and the systemic level of social institutions. Black feminist thought emphasizes all three levels as sites of domination and as potential sites of resistance. Each individual has a unique personal biography made up of concrete experiences, values, motivations, and emotions. No two individuals occupy the same social space; thus no two biographies are identical. Human ties can be freeing and empowering, as is the case with Black women's heterosexual love relationships or in the power of motherhood in African-American families and communities. Human ties can also be confining and oppressive. Situations of domestic violence and abuse or cases in which controlling images foster Black women's internalized oppression represent domination on the personal level. The same situation can look quite different depending on the consciousness one brings to interpret it. This level of individual consciousness is a fundamental area where new knowledge can generate change. Traditional accounts assume that power as domination operates from the top down by forcing and controlling unwilling victims to bend to the will of more powerful superiors. But these accounts fail to account for questions concerning why, for example, women stay with abusive men even with ample opportunity to leave or why slaves did not kill their owners more often. The willingness of the victim to collude in her or his own victimization becomes lost. They also fail to account for sustained resistance by victims, even when chances for victory appear remote. By emphasizing the power of self-definition and the necessity of a free mind, Black feminist thought speaks to the importance African-American women thinkers place on consciousness as a sphere of freedom. Black women intellectuals realize that domination operates not only by structuring power from the top down but by simultaneously annexing the power as energy of those on the bottom for its own ends. In their efforts to rearticulate the standpoint of AfricanAmerican women as a group, Black feminist thinkers offer individual AfricanAmerican women the conceptual tools to resist oppression. The cultural context formed by those experiences and ideas that are shared with other members of a group or community which give meaning to individual biographies constitutes a second level at which domination is experienced and resisted. Each individual biography is rooted in several overlapping cultural contexts-for example, groups defined by race, social class, age, gender, religion, and sexual orientation. The cultural component contributes, among other things, the concepts used in thinking and acting, group validation of an individual's interpretation of concepts, the "thought models" used in the acquisition of knowledge, and standards used to evaluate individual thought and behavior. The most cohesive cultural contexts are those with identifiable histories, geographic locations, and social institutions. For Black women African-American communities have provided the location for an Afrocentric group perspective to endure. Subjugated knowledges, such as a Black women's culture of resistance, develop in cultural contexts controlled by oppressed groups. Dominant groups aim to replace subjugated knowledge with their own specialized thought because they realize that gaining control over this dimension of subordinate groups' lives simplifies control. While efforts to influence this dimension of an oppressed group's experiences can be partially successful, this level is more difficult to control than dominant groups would have us believe. For example, adhering to externally derived standards of beauty leads many African-American women to dislike their skin color or hair texture. Similarly, internalizing Eurocentric gender ideology leads some Black men to abuse Black women. These are cases of the successful infusion of the dominant group's specialized thought into the everyday cultural context of African-Americans. But the long-standing existence of a Black women's culture of resistance as expressed through Black women's relationships with one another, the Black women's blues tradition, and the voices of contemporary African-American women writers all attest to the difficulty of eliminating the cultural context as a fundamental site of resistance.

Their race focus reinforces subordination and oppression of other groups. The notion that only the black body is fungible renders the poor white woman as an oppressor, instead of one subjected to domestic violence, rape, and economic exploitation. They have already hierarchized black violence as fundamental. They should lose the debate for their singular axis focus. Patricia Hill Collins 2009 (Distinguished University Professor of Sociology at the University of Maryland, College Park “Black Feminist Thought in the Matrix of Domination” http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45a/252.html)

Domination operates by seducing, pressuring, or forcing African-American women and members of subordinated groups to replace individual and cultural ways of knowing with the dominant group's specialized thought. As a result, suggests Audre Lorde, "the true focus of revolutionary change is never merely the oppressive situations which we seek to escape, but that piece of the oppressor which is planted deep within each of us." Or as Toni Cade Bambara succinctly states, "revolution begins with the self, in the self." Lorde and Bambara's suppositions raise an important issue for Black feminist intellectuals and for all scholars and activists working for social change. Although most individuals have little difficulty identifying their own victimization within some major system of oppression--whether it be by race, social class, religion, physical ability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, age or gender--they typically fail to see how their thoughts and actions uphold someone else's subordination. Thus white feminists routinely point with confidence to their oppression as women but resist seeing how much their white skin privileges them. African-Americans who possess eloquent analyses of racism often persist in viewing poor white women as symbols of white power. The radical left fares little better. "If only people of color and women could see their true class interests," they argue, "class solidarity would eliminate racism and sexism." In essence, each group identifies the oppression with which it feels most comfortable as being fundamental and classifies all others as being of lesser importance. Oppression is filled with such contradictions because these approaches fail to recognize that a matrix of domination contains few pure victims or oppressors. Each individual derives varying amounts of penalty and privilege from the multiple systems of oppression which frame everyone's lives. A broader focus stresses the interlocking nature of oppressions that are structured on multiple levels, from the individual to the social structural, and which are part of a larger matrix of domination. Adhering to this inclusive model provides the conceptual space needed for each individual to see that she or he is both a member of multiple dominant groups and a member of multiple subordinate groups. Shifting the analysis to investigating how the matrix of domination is structured along certain axes--race, gender, and class being the axes of investigation for African-American women-reveals that different systems of oppression may rely in varying degrees on systemic versus interpersonal mechanisms of domination. Empowerment involves rejecting the dimensions of knowledge, whether personal, cultural, or institutional, that perpetuate objectification and dehumanization. AfricanAmerican women and other individuals in subordinate groups become empowered when we understand and use those dimensions of our individual, group, and disciplinary ways of knowing that foster our humanity as fully human subjects. This is the case when Black women value our self-definitions, participate in a Black women's activist tradition, invoke an Afrocentric feminist epistemology as central to our worldview, and view the skills gained in schools as part of a focused education for Black community development. C. Wright Mills identifies this holistic epistemology as the "sociological imagination" and identifies its task and its promise as a way of knowing that enables individuals to grasp the relations between history and biography within society. Using one's standpoint to engage the sociological imagination can empower the individual. "My fullest concentration of energy is available to me," Audre Lorde maintains, "only when I integrate all the parts of who I am, openly, allowing power from particular sources of my living to flow back and forth freely through all my different selves, without the restriction of externally imposed definition."

The alternative is to endorse black feminist thought as a survival strategy. Black feminist thought is paradigmatically distinct from the aff’s reliance on a solely-race-based understanding of oppression. Black women must be the CENTER of our analysis if we are to create struggles against oppression. Any attempt of the aff to “add” the experience of black women will fail. Only the alternative can challenge formations of domination. Prefer black feminism as a starting point. It’s the best survival strategy -- born of the material conditions of race AND gendered state violence – Race alone fails

Beth Richie has observed that this failure lives on in anti-prisonpolitics and critical prison studies. Feminist theories of the prison often cannot think race, while antiracist theories of incarceration fail to center, or even consider, gender and sexual politics. 10 Black feminism is one formation we can turn to—along with queer of color critique and the growing movement around imprisoned transgender women of color— that can name the particularities of power that escape the theories produced by the GIP, Foucault, and dominant Western epistemologies. 11 This is because Black feminism emerged out of the material conditions of “the prison of slavery and the slavery of prison” and thus does not let the racialized and gendered operations of power go unnamed or unthought. 12 As Sandoval puts it, “U.S. third world feminism rose out of the matrix of the very discourses denying, permitting, and producing difference.” 13 Her “methodology of the oppressed” emerges out of the shock, trauma, terror, and forms of resistance experienced under slavery, colonization, and state violence. 14 It is from within populations labeled materially and “existentially surplus” by the neoliberal-carceral state that survival skills, modes of action, and alternative epistemologies emerge to lead toward new worlds and “something else to be.” 15 This is the way beyond “the ordinary way” Norton named in 1969. In this chapter, I read the insights and theories of the GIP alongside the writings of imprisoned revolutionary Black women in the 1970s. My argument is not, as Brady Heiner has observed about the Black Panther Party, that Foucault and the GIP are directly indebted to Black feminism and thus that they have subjugated the knowledges central to their political aspirations (although, as Heiner observes, this may be true in the case of Angela Davis’ writing). 16 Rather, I am interested in how Black feminist theories of the racialization of gender and sexuality can rewrite dominant, radical, and revolutionary conceptions of the racialized terror of the carceral and the politics of prison abolition. Such an investigation allows us to think transnationally about the emergence of a variety of 1970s movements that took the prison as their object and abolition as their goal. Yet, as I argue, Foucault and the GIP produced a universalizing theory of the prison and the prisoner that threatened to reproduce the forms of subjection they aimed to undo. In what follows, I consider how the GIP and Black feminism share a theorization of the biopolitics of the prison and the role of culture in abolitionist politics. At the same time, they diverge in the solutions they define and the futures they imagine. Black feminism analyzes the intimate forms of anti-Black and heteropatriarchal domination produced by the prison regime. Attention to the everyday intimacies of power also shapes Black feminism’s conception of abolition. In their writings regarding the prisoner, the GIP continually asks, “Can they ever escape?,” a question they are unable to answer. Black feminism provides a theory of how to escape the prison even as it expands and intensifies.

10/26/18

JF K- Exceptionalism

Tournament: UH | Round: 5 | Opponent: Strake Jesuit AA | Judge: Ali RizviReject the affirmative – its condemnation of authoritarian leaders as unique is part of an Orientalist fantasy of American democracy promotion Soumaya Ghannoushi 11 is a researcher in the history of ideas at the School of Oriental and African Studies. "Obama, hands off our spring" May 26 2011 www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/may/26/obama-hands-off-arab-springThe US wants to turn the Arab revolutions into eastern Europe part 2. It is destined to fail.The first wave of Arab revolutions is entering its second phase: dismantling the structures of political despotism, and embarking on the arduous journey towards genuine change and democratisation. The US, at first confused by the loss of key allies, is now determined to dictate the course and outcome of this ongoing revolution.What had been a challenge to US power is now a "historic opportunity", as Barack Obama put it in his Middle East speech last week. But he does not mean an opportunity for the people who have risen up; it is a chance for Washington to fashion the region's present and future, just as it did its past. When Obama talks of his desire "to pursue the world as it should be" he does not mean according to the yearnings of its people, but according to US interests.And how is this new world to be built? The model is that of eastern Europe and the colour revolutions; American soft power and public diplomacy is to be used to reshape the socio-political scene in the region. The aim is to transform the people's revolutions into America's revolutions by engineering a new set of docile, domesticated and US-friendly elites. This involves not only co-opting old friends from the pre-revolutionary era, but also seeking to contain the new forces produced by the revolution, long marginalised by the US.As Obama put it last week: "We must … reach the people who will shape the future – particularly young people … and provide assistance to civil society, including those that may not be officially sanctioned." To this end he has doubled the budget for "protecting civil society groups" from $1.5m to $3.4m.The recipients are not only the usual neoliberal elements, but also activists who spearheaded the protest movements, and mainstream Islamists. Programmes aimed at youth leaders include the Leaders for Democracy Arabic project, sponsored by the US state department's Middle East partnership initiative. A number of Arab activists, including the Egyptian democracy and human rights activist Esraa Abdel Fattah, were invited to an event hosted by the Project on Middle East Democracy in Washington last month – one of many recent conferences and seminars. Meetings between high-ranking US officials – such as the House majority leader, Steny Hoyer – and the Muslim Brotherhood took place in Cairo last month, while the deputy chairman of Tunisia's Islamist Ennahda party has recently returned from a visit to Washington to "discuss democratic transition".Washington hopes that these rising forces can be stripped of their ideological opposition to US hegemony and turned into pragmatists, fully integrated into the existing US-led international order. Dogma is not a problem, as long as the players agree to operate within parameters delineated for them, and play the power game without questioning its rules. It remains to be seen, however, if they risk losing their popular base in return for US favours.Containment and integration are not only political, but economic, to be pursued through free markets and trade partnerships in the name of economic reform. Plans "to stabilise and modernise" the Tunisian and Egyptian economies – already being drafted by the World Bank, IMF and European Development Bank at Washington's behest – are due to be presented at this week's G8 summit. A $2bn facility to support private investment has been announced, one of many initiatives "modelled on funds that supported the transitions in eastern Europe".As usual, investment and aid are conditional on adoption of the US model in the name of liberalisation and reform, and on binding the region's economies further to US and European markets under the banner of "trade integration". One wonders what would be left of the Arab revolutions in such infiltrated civil societies, domesticated political parties, and dependent economies.However, although the Obama administration may succeed with some Arab organisations, its bid to reproduce the eastern European scenario may be destined to fail. Prague and Warsaw looked to the US for inspiration, but for the people of Cairo, Tunis and Sana'a the US is the equivalent of the Soviet Union in eastern Europe: it is the problem, not the solution. To Arabs, the US is a force of occupation draped in a thin cloak of democracy and human rights.No one could have offered stronger evidence of such a view than Obama himself, who began his Middle East speech with eulogies to freedom and the equality of all men, and ended it with talk of the "Jewishness of Israel", in effect denying the citizenship rights of 20 of its Arab inhabitants and the right of return of 6 million Palestinian refugees. In vain does the US try to reconcile the irreconcilable – to preach democracy, while occupying and aiding occupation.

The affirmative’s “us versus them” distinction between the United States and authoritarian regimes ignores the prevalence of authoritarian practices within the US.Glasius, 18 : “What Authoritarianism is… and is not: a practice perspective” International Affairs, Volume 94 Marlies Glasius is a Lecturer in Management of Non-Governmental Organisations at the Centre for Civil Society and a Research Fellow at the Centre for the Study of Global Governance, London School of Economics and Political Science.The global digital surveillance programme of the US National Security Agency (NSA), made public through the Snowden revelations, nicely illustrates what constitutes a practice. For a number of years, the NSA gathered massive amounts of data primarily on non-US citizens through various methods, including siphoning data from land and undersea cables, ordering companies to share metadata, using malware and pressuring vendors to install ‘back doors’ into their products. This practice was not associated specifically with one administration: while various sub-projects such as XKeyscore and PRISM appear to have been initiated under George W. Bush,39 they continued under the Obama administration, and the 2008 FISA Amendment Act that authorized the NSA, in principle, to monitor electronic communications of foreigners abroad, was renewed in 2012.40 The programme was sustained for years, well documented and to some extent transnational, with the British Government Communications Headquarters and the Australian Signals Directorate being particularly close collaborators.41 Hundreds of people have been involved in its implementation.42 This brings us to the second useful commonality in practice theory: its emphasis on organizational and social context. According to Schatzki, ‘a practice is a set of doings and sayings organized by a pool of understandings, a set of rules’.43 This chimes with what we know from case-studies of authoritarian regimes. People do not obey an isolated dictator out of pure fear, or collaborate with him out of pure greed or hunger for power. They develop common understandings of how things are done within their social context, whether they are true believers in the government's legitimation narratives, or just pragmatists, or somewhere in between. Indeed, while practice theory is rarely explicitly invoked in authoritarianism studies,44 many excellent country or area-focused studies implicitly take a practice-centred approach. Stern and O'Brien, for instance, find that politicized Chinese citizens are constantly receiving and interpreting ‘mixed signals’ about what is and is not permissible, an observation which suggests that ‘the Chinese state, even at its most repressive, is not as single-minded as it is sometimes portrayed’, but instead consists of a ‘hodgepodge of disparate actors’ with very different ways of operating.45 Slater and Fenner, drawing on different country cases, make a careful distinction between ‘the machinery of the state’ and ‘its operators’,46 and argue that strong state institutions can be a remarkable resource for effective authoritarian practices, for instance by ruling parties. Heydemann and Leenders insist that a shift from holistic regime analysis to investigating the authoritarian practices of judicial, social policy or religious institutions in Syria and Iran is necessary to analyse what they call ‘recombinant authoritarianism’.47 When considering the possibility of ‘authoritarianness’ in Hungary or the United States, too, we must not get obsessed with the personalities of Orbán or Trump alone, but equally consider the indispensable ‘doings and sayings’ of clusters of politicians, civil servants and public figures, at different levels, who are associated with them. It was the common understanding, within and beyond the intelligence community, about what constituted necessary and permissible data-gathering for national security that made the NSA's surveillance practice possible.

Perpetuation of colonialist framings ensures millions of deaths, cycles of violence Pinar Batur 7, PhD @ UT-Austin – Prof. of Sociology @ Vassar, “The Heart of Violence: Global Racism, War, and Genocide,” in Handbook of The Sociology of Racial and Ethnic Relations, eds. Vera and Feagin, p. 446-7At the turn of the 20th century, the “Terrible Turk” was the image that summarized the enemy of Europe and the antagonism toward the hegemony of the Ottoman Empire, stretching from Europe to the Middle East, and across North Africa. Perpetuation of this imagery in American foreign policy exhibited how capitalism met with orientalist constructs in the white racial frame of the western mind (VanderLippe 1999). Orientalism is based on the conceptualization of the “Oriental” other—Eastern, Islamic societies as static, irrational, savage, fanatical, and inferior to the peaceful, rational, scientific “Occidental” Europe and the West (Said 1978). This is as an elastic construct, proving useful to describe whatever is considered as the latest threat to Western economic expansion, political and cultural hegemony, and global domination for exploitation and absorption. Post-Enlightenment Europe and later America used this iconography to define basic racist assumptions regarding their uncontestable right to impose political and economic dominance globally. When the Soviet Union existed as an opposing power, the orientalist vision of the 20th century shifted from the image of the “Terrible Turk” to that of the “Barbaric Russian Bear.” In this context, orientalist thought then, as now, set the terms of exclusion. It racialized exclusion to define the terms of racial privilege and superiority. By focusing on ideology, orientalism recreated the superior race, even though there was no “race.” It equated the hegemony of Western civilization with the “right ideological and cultural framework.” It segued into war and annihilation and genocide and continued to foster and aid the recreation of racial hatred of others with the collapse of the Soviet “other.” Orientalism’s global racist ideology reformed in the 1990s with Muslims and Islamic culture as to the “inferior other.” Seeing Muslims as opponents of Christian civilization is not new, going back to the Crusades, but the elasticity and reframing of this exclusion is evident in recent debates regarding Islam in the West, one raised by the Pope and the other by the President of the United States. Against the background of the latest Iraq war, attacks in the name of Islam, racist attacks on Muslims in Europe and in the United States, and detention of Muslims without trial in secret prisons, Pope Benedict XVI gave a speech in September 2006 at Regensburg University in Germany. He quoted a 14th-century Byzantine emperor who said, “show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.” In addition, the Pope discussed the concept of Jihad, which he defined as Islamic “holy war,” and said, “violence in the name of religion was contrary to God’s nature and to reason.” He also called for dialogue between cultures and religions (Fisher 2006b). While some Muslims found the Pope’s speech “regrettable,” it also caused a spark of angry protests against the Pope’s “ill informed and bigoted” comments, and voices raised to demand an apology (Fisher 2006a). Some argue that the Pope was ordering a new crusade, for Christian civilization to conquer terrible and savage Islam. When Benedict apologized, organizations and parliaments demanded a retraction and apology from the Pope and the Vatican (Lee 2006). Yet, when the Pope apologized, it came as a second insult, because in his apology he said, “I’m deeply sorry for the reaction in some countries to a few passages of my address at the University of Regensburg, which were considered offensive to the sensibilities of Muslims” (Reuters 2006). In other words, he is sorry that Muslims are intolerant to the point of fanaticism. In the racialized world, the Pope’s apology came as an effort to show justification for his speech—he was not apologizing for being insulting, but rather saying that he was sorry that “Muslim” violence had proved his point. Through orientalist and the white racial frame, those who are subject to racial hatred and exclusion themselves become agents of racist legitimization. Like Huntington, Bernard Lewis was looking for Armageddon in his Wall Street Journal article warning that August 22, 2006, was the 27th day of the month of Rajab in the Islamic calendar and is considered a holy day, when Muhammad was taken to heaven and returned. For Muslims this day is a day of rejoicing and celebration. But for Lewis, Professor Emeritus at Princeton, “this might well be deemed an appropriate date for the apocalyptic ending of Israel and, if necessary, of the world” (Lewis 2006). He cautions that “it is far from certain that the President of Iran Mr. Ahmadinejad plans any such cataclysmic events for August 22, but it would be wise to bear the possibility in mind.” Lewis argues that Muslims, unlike others, seek self-destruction in order to reach heaven faster. For Lewis, Muslims in this mindset don’t see the idea of Mutually Assured Destruction as a constraint but rather as “an inducement” (Lewis 2006). In 1993, Huntington pleaded that “in a world of different civilizations, each . . .will have to learn to coexist with the others” (Huntington 1993:49). Lewis, like Pope Benedict, views Islam as the apocalyptic destroyer of civilization and claims that reactions against orientalist, racist visions such as his actually prove the validity of his position. Lewis’s assertions run parallel with George Bush’s claims. In response to the alleged plot to blow up British airliners, Bush claimed, “This nation is at war with Islamic fascists who will use any means to destroy those of us who love freedom, to hurt our nation” (TurkishPress.com. 2006; Beck 2006). Bush argued that “the fight against terrorism is the ideological struggle of the 21st century” and he compared it to the 20th century’s fight against fascism, Nazism, and communism. Even though “Islamo-fascist” has for some tim been a buzzword for Bill O’Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity on the talk-show circuit, for the president of the United States it drew reactions worldwide. Muslim Americans found this phrase “contributing to the rising level of hostility to Islam and the American Muslim community” (Raum 2006). Considering that since 2001, Bush has had a tendency to equate “war on terrorism” with “crusade,” this new rhetoric equates ideology with religion and reinforces the worldview of a war of civilizations. As Bush said, “ . . .we still aren’t completely safe, because there are people that still plot and people who want to harm us for what we believe in” (CNN 2006). Exclusion in physical space is only matched by exclusion in the imagination, and racialized exclusion has an internal logic leading to the annihilation of the excluded. Annihilation, in this sense, is not only designed to maintain the terms of racial inequality, both ideologically and physically, but is institutionalized with the vocabulary of self-protection. Even though the terms of exclusion are never complete, genocide is the definitive point in the exclusionary racial ideology, and such is the logic of the outcome of the exclusionary process, that it can conclude only in ultimate domination. War and genocide take place with compliant efficiency to serve the global racist ideology with dizzying frequency. The 21st century opened up with genocide, in Darfur.

Thus, the alternative to is view authoritarianism through the lens of practice. Glasius, 18:2 “What Authoritarianism is… and is not: a practice perspective” International Affairs, Volume 94 Marlies Glasius is a Lecturer in Management of Non-Governmental Organisations at the Centre for Civil Society and a Research Fellow at the Centre for the Study of Global Governance, London School of Economics and Political Science.I will argue that, instead of focusing exclusively on authoritarian regimes or authoritarian personalities, we should study (that is, define, operationalize, observe, classify, analyse) authoritarian and illiberal practices. A focus on practice has the additional advantage of helping us go beyond a single-state context and recognize such phenomena as transnational illiberalism or public–private authoritarian partnerships. Below I will demonstrate what analytical challenges we face, discuss how political science came to be so myopic in its study of authoritarianism, and suggest how a practice perspective can provide more socially relevant and resonant understandings of authoritarianism and illiberalism. I will define authoritarian practices as patterns of action that sabotage accountability to people over whom a political actor exerts control, or their representatives, by means of secrecy, disinformation and disabling voice. These are distinct from illiberal practices, which refer to patterned and organized infringements of individual autonomy and dignity. Although the two kinds of practice often go together in political life, the difference lies in the type of harm effected: authoritarian practices primarily constitute a threat to democratic processes, while illiberal practices are primarily a human rights problem.8 I end with a few words on what needs to be done in order that political scientists can better detect and analyse authoritarian and illiberal practices, and thus better advise their societies when their democratic foundations appear to be under threat.…Indeed, as the critical security literature has long recognized, what I have termed authoritarian and illiberal practices frequently coincide with the invocation of security concerns.68 Such practices require political science analysis, in terms of their authoritarianness, even when there is no imminent threat of full-scale regime change. This conceptual essay is just a beginning. Authoritarian and illiberal practices must be better operationalized, classified and compared, and causal connections established with other phenomena, if we are to suggest ways of responding to them. Redefining authoritarianism and illiberalism from a practice perspective allows us to bring back home the knowledge we have developed about how authoritarianism works. Turning our gaze on our own societies, we can come to understand how authoritarian and illiberal practices unfold and evolve within democracies, and in transnational settings; we can begin to see in what circumstances they thrive, and how they are best countered. Impact: Permutations are a link to the K- attempt at glossing over structures of violence just like the US does by removing military aid, and it’s an example of majority coopting minority voicesThe judge should be a critical intellectual evaluating the knowledge claims of the 1AC – if we win the epistemological foundations of the aff are suspect we should win irrespective of hypothetical enactment.The ROB is to challenge modern colonial politics in educational spaces. The question of military aid can only be answered when we first unsettle the coloniality of knowledge and being that has demarcated the majority of the world as subhuman populations given over to death.Wynter 2003 (Sylvia, Professor of Romance Languages at Stanford University, “Unsettling the Coloniality of Being/Power/Truth/FreedomTowards the Human, After Man, Its Overrepresentation—An Argument,” CR: The New Centennial Review, 3.3 (2003) 257-337, MUSE)THE ARGUMENT PROPOSES THAT THE STRUGGLE OF OUR NEW MILLENNIUM WILL be one between the ongoing imperative of securing the well-being of our present ethnoclass (i.e., Western bourgeois) conception of the human, Man, which overrepresents itself as if it were the human itself, and that of securing the well-being, and therefore the full cognitive and behavioral autonomy of the human species itself/ourselves. Because of this overrepresentation, which is defined in the first part of the title as the Coloniality of Being/ Power/Truth/Freedom, any attempt to unsettle the coloniality of power will call for the unsettling of this overrepresentation as the second and now purely secular form of what Aníbal Quijano identifies as the "Racism/ Ethnicism complex," on whose basis the world of modernity was brought into existence from the fifteenth/sixteenth centuries onwards (Quijano 1999, 2000), 2 and of what Walter Mignolo identifies as the foundational "colonial difference" on which the world of modernity was to institute itself (Mignolo 1999, 2000). 3 The correlated hypothesis here is that all our present struggles with respect to race, class, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, struggles over the environment, global warming, severe climate change, the sharply unequal distribution of the earth resources (20 percent of the world's peoples own 80 percent of its resources, consume two-thirds of its food, and are responsible for 75 percent of its ongoing pollution, with this leading to two billion of End Page 260 earth's peoples living relatively affluent lives while four billion still live on the edge of hunger and immiseration, to the dynamic of overconsumption on the part of the rich techno-industrial North paralleled by that of overpopulation on the part of the dispossessed poor, still partly agrarian worlds of the South 4 )—these are all differing facets of the central ethnoclass Man vs. Human struggle. Central to this struggle also is the usually excluded and invisibilized situation of the category identified by Zygmunt Bauman as the "New Poor" (Bauman 1987). That is, as a category defined at the global level by refugee/economic migrants stranded outside the gates of the rich countries, as the postcolonial variant of Fanon's category of les damnés (Fanon 1963)—with this category in the United States coming to comprise the criminalized majority Black and dark-skinned Latino inner-city males now made to man the rapidly expanding prison-industrial complex, together with their female peers—the kicked-about Welfare Moms—with both being part of the ever-expanding global, transracial category of the homeless/the jobless, the semi-jobless, the criminalized drug-offending prison population. So that if we see this category of the damnés that is internal to (and interned within) the prison system of the United States as the analog form of a global archipelago, constituted by the Third- and Fourth-World peoples of the so-called "underdeveloped" areas of the world—most totally of all by the peoples of the continent of Africa (now stricken with AIDS, drought, and ongoing civil wars, and whose bottommost place as the most impoverished of all the earth's continents is directly paralleled by the situation of its Black Diaspora peoples, with Haiti being produced and reproduced as the most impoverished nation of the Americas)—a systemic pattern emerges. This pattern is linked to the fact that while in the post-sixties United States, as Herbert Gans noted recently, the Black population group, of all the multiple groups comprising the post-sixties social hierarchy, has once again come to be placed at the bottommost place of that hierarchy (Gans, 1999), with all incoming new nonwhite/non-Black groups, as Gans's fellow sociologist Andrew Hacker (1992) earlier pointed out, coming to claim "normal" North American identity by the putting of visible distance between themselves and the Black population group (in effect, claiming "normal" human status by distancing themselves from the group that is still made to occupy the nadir, End Page 261 "nigger" rung of being human within the terms of our present ethnoclass Man's overrepresentation of its "descriptive statement" Bateson 1969 as if it were that of the human itself), then the struggle of our times, one that has hitherto had no name, is the struggle against this overrepresentation. As a struggle whose first phase, the Argument proposes, was first put in place (if only for a brief hiatus before being coopted, reterritorialized Godzich 1986) by the multiple anticolonial social-protest movements and intellectual challenges of the period to which we give the name, "The Sixties." The further proposal here is that, although the brief hiatus during which the sixties' large-scale challenge based on multiple issues, multiple local terrains of struggles (local struggles against, to use Mignolo's felicitous phrase, a "global design" Mignolo 2000) erupted was soon to be erased, several of the issues raised then would continue to be articulated, some in sanitized forms (those pertaining to the category defined by Bauman as "the seduced"), others in more harshly intensified forms (those pertaining to Bauman's category of the "repressed" Bauman 1987). Both forms of "sanitization" would, however, function in the same manner as the lawlike effects of the post-sixties' vigorous discursive and institutional re-elaboration of the central overrepresentation, which enables the interests, reality, and well-being of the empirical human world to continue to be imperatively subordinated to those of the now globally hegemonic ethnoclass world of "Man." This, in the same way as in an earlier epoch and before what Howard Winant identifies as the "immense historical rupture" of the "Big Bang" processes that were to lead to a contemporary modernity defined by the "rise of the West" and the "subjugation of the rest of us" (Winant 1994)—before, therefore, the secularizing intellectual revolution of Renaissance humanism, followed by the decentralizing religious heresy of the Protestant Reformation and the rise of the modern state—the then world of laymen and laywomen, including the institution of the political state, as well as those of commerce and of economic production, had remained subordinated to that of the post-Gregorian Reform Church of Latin-Christian Europe (Le Goff 1983), and therefore to the "rules of the social order" and the theories "which gave them sanction" (See Konrad and Szelenyi guide-quote), as these rules were articulated by its theologians and implemented by its celibate clergy (See Le Goff guide-quote). End Page 262 The Janus face of the emergence of Mignolo's proposed "modernity/coloniality" complementarity is sited here. As also is the answer to the why of the fact that, as Aníbal Quijano insists in his Qué tal Raza! (2000), the "idea of race" would come to be "the most efficient instrument of social domination invented in the last 500 years." In order for the world of the laity, including that of the then ascendant modern European state, to escape their subordination to the world of the Church, it had been enabled to do so only on the basis of what Michel Foucault identifies as the "invention of Man": that is, by the Renaissance humanists' epochal redescription of the human outside the terms of the then theocentric, "sinful by nature" conception/ "descriptive statement" of the human, on whose basis the hegemony of the Church/clergy over the lay world of Latin-Christian Europe had been supernaturally legitimated (Chorover 1979). While, if this redescription was effected by the lay world's invention of Man as the political subject of the state, in the transumed and reoccupied place of its earlier matrix identity Christian, the performative enactment of this new "descriptive statement" and its master code of symbolic life and death, as the first secular or "degodded" (if, at the time, still only partly so) mode of being human in the history of the species, was to be effected only on the basis of what Quijano identifies as the "coloniality of power," Mignolo as the "colonial difference," and Winant as a huge project demarcating human differences thinkable as a "racial longue durée." One of the major empirical effects of which would be "the rise of Europe" and its construction of the "world civilization" on the one hand, and, on the other, African enslavement, Latin American conquest, and Asian subjugation.

1/19/19

JF Reform CP

Tournament: UH | Round: 2 | Opponent: Alyssa Trejo | Judge: Tess WelchCounterplan text: The United States ought to1) Mandate that aid recipients demonstrate commitment to rules of good governance,*2) Create mechanisms to monitor security assistance against benchmarks linked to US foreign policy objectives,3) Link arms sales to mandatory human rights training, 4) Include sunset provisions in arms sales agreements based on performance milestones, and5) Ensure each of these reforms are properly instituted and enforced*Examples include: not murdering innocent civilians, not oppressing your population, and not being super corruptSunset provisions mean the aid is set to renew for a limited time, not indefinitely as some aid currently is providedMiller and Sokolsky 18 (Andrew Miller, Richard Sokolsky, Andrew Miller is a nonresident scholar in Carnegie’s Middle East Program. Richard Sokolsky is a nonresident senior fellow in Carnegie’s Russia and Eurasia Program. His work focuses on U.S. policy toward Russia in the wake of the Ukraine crisis. 2/27/18, "What Has $49 Billion in Foreign Military Aid Bought Us? Not Much," Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, https://carnegieendowment.org/2018/02/27/what-has-49-billion-in-foreign-military-aid-bought-us-not-much-pub-75657, accessed 12-15-2018)U.S. military assistance in the Middle East (and more broadly) is in need of serious reform. Here are four major innovations to help fix it: Before allocating security assistance, recipients should first have to demonstrate their commitment to a set of norms, standards, and rules of good security-sector governance. The State Department and Congress should create new mechanisms to rigorously assess, monitor, and evaluate security assistance against performance benchmarks that are linked to U.S. foreign policy objectives. The sale of weapons should be linked to new training commitments that the host country would have to fulfill in advance before taking delivery of the weapons and equipment. To demonstrate its commitment to performance and results, all contracts for the supply of weapons and training should include “sunset” provisions based on mutually agreed upon performance milestones. Most in the American defense establishment would agree in principle that introducing more accountability for U.S. military assistance and arms sales is a worthy goal. But they would also express concern that the measures we recommend would prompt Middle Eastern countries to turn to Russia or China for easier terms. However, for many of our security partners, especially Saudi Arabia and Egypt, integrating Russian and Chinese weapons into their force structure would create serious operational and logistical problems. Moreover, neither Moscow nor Beijing offers grant assistance, which means they are not viable substitutes for countries that depend on U.S. financial help to buy equipment. Even for countries that use their own money, their strong preference for U.S. equipment, which they view as both superior to the alternatives and a sign of American support, suggests they would be willing to submit to more rigorous oversight if that is the price of obtaining American weapons.

NET BENEFIT:

The plan causes a shift to PMCs – outweighs – more secretive and less accountable Whitehead 12 (John W. Whitehead, attorney and author in constitutional law and human rights, Hungarian Medal of Freedom, established The Rutherford Institute, a nonprofit civil liberties and human rights organization in Charlottesville, 1/17/12, "Privatizing the War on Terror: America's Military Contractors," http:www.huffingtonpost.com/john-w-whitehead/privatizing-the-war-on-te_1_b_1209086.html)America’s troops may be returning home from Iraq, but contrary to President Obama’s assertion that “the tide of war is receding,” we’re far from done paying the costs of war. In fact, at the same time that Obama is reducing the number of troops in Iraq, he’s replacing them with military contractors at far greater expense to the taxpayer and redeploying American troops to other parts of the globe, including Africa, Australia and Israel. In this way, the war on terror is privatized, the American economy is bled dry, and the military-security industrial complex makes a killing — literally and figuratively speaking. The war effort in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan has already cost taxpayers more than $2 trillion and could go as high as $4.4 trillion before it’s all over. At least $31 billion (and as much as $60 billion or more) of that $2 trillion was lost to waste and fraud by military contractors, who do everything from janitorial and food service work to construction, security and intelligence — jobs that used to be handled by the military. That translates to a loss of $12 million a day since the U.S. first invaded Afghanistan. To put it another way, the government is spending more on war than all 50 states combined spend on health, education, welfare, and safety. Over the past two decades, America has become increasingly dependent on military contractors in order to carry out military operations abroad (in fact, the government’s extensive use of private security contractors has surged under Obama). According to the Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States can no longer conduct large or sustained military operations or respond to major disasters without heavy support from contractors. As a result, the U.S. employs at a minimum one contractor to support every soldier deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq (that number increases dramatically when U.S. troop numbers decrease). For those signing on for contractor work, many of whom are hired by private contracting firms after serving stints in the military, it is a lucrative, albeit dangerous, career path (private contractors are 2.75 times more likely to die than troops). Incredibly, while base pay for an American soldier hovers somewhere around $19,000 per year, contractors are reportedly pulling in between $150,000 - $250,000 per year. The exact number of military contractors on the U.S. payroll is hard to pin down, thanks to sleight-of-hand accounting by the Department of Defense and its contractors. However, according to a Wartime Contracting Commission report released in August 2011, there are more than 260,000 private contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan, more than the number of ground troops in both countries. As noted, that number increases dramatically when troops are withdrawn from an area, as we currently see happening in Iraq. Pratap Chatterjee of the Center for American Progress estimates that “if the Obama administration draws down to 68,000 troops in Afghanistan by September 2012, they will need 88,400 contractors at the very least, but potentially as many as 95,880.” With paid contractors often outnumbering enlisted combat troops, the American war effort dubbed by George W. Bush as the “coalition of the willing” has since evolved into the “coalition of the billing.” The Pentagon’s Central Command counts 225,000 contractors working in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. Between December 2008 and December 2010, the total number of private security contractors in Afghanistan increased by 413 while troop levels increased 200. Private contractors provide a number of services, including transport, construction, drone operation, and security. One military contractor, Blackbird, is composed of former CIA operatives who go on secret missions to recover missing and captured US soldiers. Then there is the Lincoln Group which became famous for engaging in covert psychological operations by planting stories in the Iraqi press that glorified the U.S. mission. Global Strategies Group guards the consulate in Basra for $401 million. SOC Inc. protects the US embassy for $974 million. Unfortunately, fraud, mismanagement and corruption have become synonymous with the U.S. government’s use of military contractors. McClatchy News “found that U.S. government funding for at least 15 large-scale programs and projects in Afghanistan grew from just over $1 billion to nearly $3 billion despite the government’s questions about their effectiveness or cost.” One program started off as a modest wheat program and “ballooned into one of America’s biggest counterinsurgency projects in southern Afghanistan despite misgivings about its impact.” Another multi-billion-dollar program resulted in the construction of schools, clinics and other public buildings that were so poorly built that they might not withstand a serious earthquake and will have to be rebuilt. Then there was the $300 million diesel power plant that was built despite the fact that it wouldn’t be used regularly “because its fuel cost more than the Afghan government could afford to run it regularly.” RWA, a group of three Afghan contractors, was selected to build a 17.5 mile paved road in Ghazni province. They were paid $4 million between 2008 and 2010 before the contract was terminatedwith only 2/3 of a mile of road paved. Mind you, with the U.S. spending more than $2 billion a week in Afghanistan, these examples of ineptitude and waste represent only a fraction of what is being funded by American taxpayer dollars. (Investigative reports reveal that large amounts of cash derived from U.S. aid and logistics spending are being flown out of the country on a regular basis by Afghan officials, including $52 million by the Afghan vice president, who was allowed to keep the money.) Yet what most Americans fail to realize is that we’re funding the very individuals we claim to be fighting. The war effort has become so corrupt that U.S. taxpayers are not only being bilked by military contractors but are also being forced to indirectly fund insurgents and warlords in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the Taliban, which receives money from military contractors in exchange for protection. This is rationalized away as a “cost of doing business“ in those countries. As the Financial Times reports, the Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan “found that extortion of funds from US construction and transportation projects was the second-biggest funding source for insurgent groups.” Despite what one might think, the boom in contracting work in the war zones isn’t necessarily aiding U.S. employment, given that large numbers of contractors are actually foreign nationals. For example, over 90 of the private security contractors in Afghanistan are Afghans. One contractor, Triple Canopy, most of whose guards are from Uganda and Peru, has a $1.53 billion contract with the State Department to protect its employees. ArmorGroup North America (AGNA), which is contracted to secure the US embassy in Kabul, hires many Nepalese (known as Gurkhas) whose English is not proficient. “One guard described the situation as so dire that if he were to say to many of the Gurkhas, ‘There is a terrorist standing behind you,’ those Gurkhas would answer ‘Thank you sir, and good morning.’” The practices employed by the military contractors also reflect poorly on America’s commitment to human rights — both in the way that they treat their employees and in their employees’ behavior. For example, Triple Canopy houses its employees in overcrowded shipping containers. In addition to soliciting underage Chinese prostitutes, AGNA contractors have also been described as “peeing on people, eating potato chips out of buttock cracks, vodka shots out of buttock cracks (there is video of that one), broken doors after drnken sic brawls, threats and intimidation from those leaders participating in this activity...” This behavior is not reserved to lower level employees, and has been observed and even encouraged by upper level management. Blackwater employees have also been accused of weapons smuggling as well as cocaine and steroid use. Despite all this, Blackwater — which, as the New York Times has reported, “created a web of more than 30 shell companies or subsidiaries in part to obtain millions of dollars in American government contracts after the security company came under intense criticism for reckless conduct in Iraq” — still won a cut of a $10 billion contract given out by the State Department in 2010. Despite the high levels of corruption, waste, mismanagement and fraud by military contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. government continues to shield them, resisting any attempts at greater oversight or accountability. War, after all, has become a huge money-making venture, and America, with its vast military empire, is one of its best customers. Indeed, the American military-industrial complex has erected an empire unsurpassed in history in its breadth and scope and dedicated to conducting perpetual warfare throughout the earth.

PMCs are immune to the law and kill civilians – turns case.Del Prado 08 (Jose L. Gomez del Prado, member of the United Nations Working Group on Mercenaries, "Impact on Human Rights of Private Military and Security Companies’ Activities.” 10/11/08, http:www.globalresearch.ca/impact-on-human-rights-of-private-military-and-security-companies-activities/10523) PMSC personnel in Iraq are involved in exchange of fire with insurgents on a daily basis. Security provisions necessarily involve military engagement. There is no perceptible difference between regular soldiers and the private contractors protecting convoys (transporting ammunitions and fuel), material, buildings or persons. Providing security in such an environment necessitates being armed and ready to shoot, often under uncertain circumstances where combatants and civilians are difficult to separate. As observed in many incidents, PMSC employees can use excessive force and shoot indiscriminately resulting in civilian casualties. There are cases where PMSC employees have used forbidden arms or experimental ammunition prohibited by international law2. Private contractors often circulate without identification and drive in unidentified sport utility vehicles (SUVs) with tinted glasses and no plates, behaving similarly to the infamous death squads. In Afghanistan and Iraq, the two countries with the largest presence of PMSC staff, the population is confused and finds it extremely difficult to distinguish employees of different companies from state forces. Reports indicate erratic behavior of PMSCs employees in Iraq with mottos such as: “what happens here to-day, stays with us today”. It has also been alleged that “private security guards” would also detain Iraqis without authorization.3 According to coinciding different sources, on 16 September 2007, in Al-Nisour Square in the neighborhood of Mansour in Baghdad, security contractors protecting a United States Department convoy, which was allegedly attacked, opened fire on civilians killing 17 persons, using security company helicopters firing into the streets, resulting in civilian casualties and injuries. The security firm Blackwater claimed that its personnel came under attack by “armed enemies” and fired back in self-defense. Iraqi authorities and witnesses claim the security personnel opened fire unprovoked. In October 2007, an oversight panel of the United States House of Representatives released a report indicating that Blackwater employees had been involved in at least 196 firefights in Iraq since 2005, an average of 1.4 shootings per week. In 84 of those cases, the report stated, Blackwater employees opened fire first, despite contract stipulations to make use of force only in self-defense. Unfortunately, the case of Blackwater is not an exception. Other PMSC have been reported to be involved in such incidents, in particular the killing of four women in Kirkuk and the involvement in a shooting of employees of another PMSC protecting a convoy, in central Baghdad, which left two Iraqi women dead.4 This type of incidents involving PMSC has been prevalent in the reconstruction of Iraq since its 2003 occupation: other PMSC have also been involved in similar incidents. Outsourcing military and security functions has an inherent danger in losing State control over the use of force. In Iraq, by Order 17 issued by the Administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority on 27 June 2004, contractors are immune from prosecution. PMSCs often operate outside government control and with limited effective oversight from State organs. They provide services from interrogation to strategic intelligence in a field that is a key aspect of waging war and may not only cause torture and inhumane treatment but violate rights such as freedom of movement and privacy. When involved in crimes or human rights violations, these private security guards have not been sanctioned or brought before a court of justice, as exemplified by the involvement of contractors in torture and shootings against civilians in Iraq. The employees of two PMSCs who were involved in human rights abuses in the prison of Abu Ghraib in 2003 have never been subject to external investigations nor legally sanctioned, despite assurances given by the Government of the United States of America. U.S.

2/16/19

JF Reform CP

Tournament: UH | Round: 2 | Opponent: Alyssa Trejo | Judge: Tess WelchCounterplan text: The United States ought to1) Mandate that aid recipients demonstrate commitment to rules of good governance,*2) Create mechanisms to monitor security assistance against benchmarks linked to US foreign policy objectives,3) Link arms sales to mandatory human rights training, 4) Include sunset provisions in arms sales agreements based on performance milestones, and5) Ensure each of these reforms are properly instituted and enforced*Examples include: not murdering innocent civilians, not oppressing your population, and not being super corruptSunset provisions mean the aid is set to renew for a limited time, not indefinitely as some aid currently is providedMiller and Sokolsky 18 (Andrew Miller, Richard Sokolsky, Andrew Miller is a nonresident scholar in Carnegie’s Middle East Program. Richard Sokolsky is a nonresident senior fellow in Carnegie’s Russia and Eurasia Program. His work focuses on U.S. policy toward Russia in the wake of the Ukraine crisis. 2/27/18, "What Has $49 Billion in Foreign Military Aid Bought Us? Not Much," Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, https://carnegieendowment.org/2018/02/27/what-has-49-billion-in-foreign-military-aid-bought-us-not-much-pub-75657, accessed 12-15-2018)U.S. military assistance in the Middle East (and more broadly) is in need of serious reform. Here are four major innovations to help fix it: Before allocating security assistance, recipients should first have to demonstrate their commitment to a set of norms, standards, and rules of good security-sector governance. The State Department and Congress should create new mechanisms to rigorously assess, monitor, and evaluate security assistance against performance benchmarks that are linked to U.S. foreign policy objectives. The sale of weapons should be linked to new training commitments that the host country would have to fulfill in advance before taking delivery of the weapons and equipment. To demonstrate its commitment to performance and results, all contracts for the supply of weapons and training should include “sunset” provisions based on mutually agreed upon performance milestones. Most in the American defense establishment would agree in principle that introducing more accountability for U.S. military assistance and arms sales is a worthy goal. But they would also express concern that the measures we recommend would prompt Middle Eastern countries to turn to Russia or China for easier terms. However, for many of our security partners, especially Saudi Arabia and Egypt, integrating Russian and Chinese weapons into their force structure would create serious operational and logistical problems. Moreover, neither Moscow nor Beijing offers grant assistance, which means they are not viable substitutes for countries that depend on U.S. financial help to buy equipment. Even for countries that use their own money, their strong preference for U.S. equipment, which they view as both superior to the alternatives and a sign of American support, suggests they would be willing to submit to more rigorous oversight if that is the price of obtaining American weapons.

NET BENEFIT:

The plan causes a shift to PMCs – outweighs – more secretive and less accountable Whitehead 12 (John W. Whitehead, attorney and author in constitutional law and human rights, Hungarian Medal of Freedom, established The Rutherford Institute, a nonprofit civil liberties and human rights organization in Charlottesville, 1/17/12, "Privatizing the War on Terror: America's Military Contractors," http:www.huffingtonpost.com/john-w-whitehead/privatizing-the-war-on-te_1_b_1209086.html)America’s troops may be returning home from Iraq, but contrary to President Obama’s assertion that “the tide of war is receding,” we’re far from done paying the costs of war. In fact, at the same time that Obama is reducing the number of troops in Iraq, he’s replacing them with military contractors at far greater expense to the taxpayer and redeploying American troops to other parts of the globe, including Africa, Australia and Israel. In this way, the war on terror is privatized, the American economy is bled dry, and the military-security industrial complex makes a killing — literally and figuratively speaking. The war effort in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan has already cost taxpayers more than $2 trillion and could go as high as $4.4 trillion before it’s all over. At least $31 billion (and as much as $60 billion or more) of that $2 trillion was lost to waste and fraud by military contractors, who do everything from janitorial and food service work to construction, security and intelligence — jobs that used to be handled by the military. That translates to a loss of $12 million a day since the U.S. first invaded Afghanistan. To put it another way, the government is spending more on war than all 50 states combined spend on health, education, welfare, and safety. Over the past two decades, America has become increasingly dependent on military contractors in order to carry out military operations abroad (in fact, the government’s extensive use of private security contractors has surged under Obama). According to the Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States can no longer conduct large or sustained military operations or respond to major disasters without heavy support from contractors. As a result, the U.S. employs at a minimum one contractor to support every soldier deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq (that number increases dramatically when U.S. troop numbers decrease). For those signing on for contractor work, many of whom are hired by private contracting firms after serving stints in the military, it is a lucrative, albeit dangerous, career path (private contractors are 2.75 times more likely to die than troops). Incredibly, while base pay for an American soldier hovers somewhere around $19,000 per year, contractors are reportedly pulling in between $150,000 - $250,000 per year. The exact number of military contractors on the U.S. payroll is hard to pin down, thanks to sleight-of-hand accounting by the Department of Defense and its contractors. However, according to a Wartime Contracting Commission report released in August 2011, there are more than 260,000 private contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan, more than the number of ground troops in both countries. As noted, that number increases dramatically when troops are withdrawn from an area, as we currently see happening in Iraq. Pratap Chatterjee of the Center for American Progress estimates that “if the Obama administration draws down to 68,000 troops in Afghanistan by September 2012, they will need 88,400 contractors at the very least, but potentially as many as 95,880.” With paid contractors often outnumbering enlisted combat troops, the American war effort dubbed by George W. Bush as the “coalition of the willing” has since evolved into the “coalition of the billing.” The Pentagon’s Central Command counts 225,000 contractors working in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. Between December 2008 and December 2010, the total number of private security contractors in Afghanistan increased by 413 while troop levels increased 200. Private contractors provide a number of services, including transport, construction, drone operation, and security. One military contractor, Blackbird, is composed of former CIA operatives who go on secret missions to recover missing and captured US soldiers. Then there is the Lincoln Group which became famous for engaging in covert psychological operations by planting stories in the Iraqi press that glorified the U.S. mission. Global Strategies Group guards the consulate in Basra for $401 million. SOC Inc. protects the US embassy for $974 million. Unfortunately, fraud, mismanagement and corruption have become synonymous with the U.S. government’s use of military contractors. McClatchy News “found that U.S. government funding for at least 15 large-scale programs and projects in Afghanistan grew from just over $1 billion to nearly $3 billion despite the government’s questions about their effectiveness or cost.” One program started off as a modest wheat program and “ballooned into one of America’s biggest counterinsurgency projects in southern Afghanistan despite misgivings about its impact.” Another multi-billion-dollar program resulted in the construction of schools, clinics and other public buildings that were so poorly built that they might not withstand a serious earthquake and will have to be rebuilt. Then there was the $300 million diesel power plant that was built despite the fact that it wouldn’t be used regularly “because its fuel cost more than the Afghan government could afford to run it regularly.” RWA, a group of three Afghan contractors, was selected to build a 17.5 mile paved road in Ghazni province. They were paid $4 million between 2008 and 2010 before the contract was terminatedwith only 2/3 of a mile of road paved. Mind you, with the U.S. spending more than $2 billion a week in Afghanistan, these examples of ineptitude and waste represent only a fraction of what is being funded by American taxpayer dollars. (Investigative reports reveal that large amounts of cash derived from U.S. aid and logistics spending are being flown out of the country on a regular basis by Afghan officials, including $52 million by the Afghan vice president, who was allowed to keep the money.) Yet what most Americans fail to realize is that we’re funding the very individuals we claim to be fighting. The war effort has become so corrupt that U.S. taxpayers are not only being bilked by military contractors but are also being forced to indirectly fund insurgents and warlords in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the Taliban, which receives money from military contractors in exchange for protection. This is rationalized away as a “cost of doing business“ in those countries. As the Financial Times reports, the Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan “found that extortion of funds from US construction and transportation projects was the second-biggest funding source for insurgent groups.” Despite what one might think, the boom in contracting work in the war zones isn’t necessarily aiding U.S. employment, given that large numbers of contractors are actually foreign nationals. For example, over 90 of the private security contractors in Afghanistan are Afghans. One contractor, Triple Canopy, most of whose guards are from Uganda and Peru, has a $1.53 billion contract with the State Department to protect its employees. ArmorGroup North America (AGNA), which is contracted to secure the US embassy in Kabul, hires many Nepalese (known as Gurkhas) whose English is not proficient. “One guard described the situation as so dire that if he were to say to many of the Gurkhas, ‘There is a terrorist standing behind you,’ those Gurkhas would answer ‘Thank you sir, and good morning.’” The practices employed by the military contractors also reflect poorly on America’s commitment to human rights — both in the way that they treat their employees and in their employees’ behavior. For example, Triple Canopy houses its employees in overcrowded shipping containers. In addition to soliciting underage Chinese prostitutes, AGNA contractors have also been described as “peeing on people, eating potato chips out of buttock cracks, vodka shots out of buttock cracks (there is video of that one), broken doors after drnken sic brawls, threats and intimidation from those leaders participating in this activity...” This behavior is not reserved to lower level employees, and has been observed and even encouraged by upper level management. Blackwater employees have also been accused of weapons smuggling as well as cocaine and steroid use. Despite all this, Blackwater — which, as the New York Times has reported, “created a web of more than 30 shell companies or subsidiaries in part to obtain millions of dollars in American government contracts after the security company came under intense criticism for reckless conduct in Iraq” — still won a cut of a $10 billion contract given out by the State Department in 2010. Despite the high levels of corruption, waste, mismanagement and fraud by military contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. government continues to shield them, resisting any attempts at greater oversight or accountability. War, after all, has become a huge money-making venture, and America, with its vast military empire, is one of its best customers. Indeed, the American military-industrial complex has erected an empire unsurpassed in history in its breadth and scope and dedicated to conducting perpetual warfare throughout the earth.

PMCs are immune to the law and kill civilians – turns case.Del Prado 08 (Jose L. Gomez del Prado, member of the United Nations Working Group on Mercenaries, "Impact on Human Rights of Private Military and Security Companies’ Activities.” 10/11/08, http:www.globalresearch.ca/impact-on-human-rights-of-private-military-and-security-companies-activities/10523) PMSC personnel in Iraq are involved in exchange of fire with insurgents on a daily basis. Security provisions necessarily involve military engagement. There is no perceptible difference between regular soldiers and the private contractors protecting convoys (transporting ammunitions and fuel), material, buildings or persons. Providing security in such an environment necessitates being armed and ready to shoot, often under uncertain circumstances where combatants and civilians are difficult to separate. As observed in many incidents, PMSC employees can use excessive force and shoot indiscriminately resulting in civilian casualties. There are cases where PMSC employees have used forbidden arms or experimental ammunition prohibited by international law2. Private contractors often circulate without identification and drive in unidentified sport utility vehicles (SUVs) with tinted glasses and no plates, behaving similarly to the infamous death squads. In Afghanistan and Iraq, the two countries with the largest presence of PMSC staff, the population is confused and finds it extremely difficult to distinguish employees of different companies from state forces. Reports indicate erratic behavior of PMSCs employees in Iraq with mottos such as: “what happens here to-day, stays with us today”. It has also been alleged that “private security guards” would also detain Iraqis without authorization.3 According to coinciding different sources, on 16 September 2007, in Al-Nisour Square in the neighborhood of Mansour in Baghdad, security contractors protecting a United States Department convoy, which was allegedly attacked, opened fire on civilians killing 17 persons, using security company helicopters firing into the streets, resulting in civilian casualties and injuries. The security firm Blackwater claimed that its personnel came under attack by “armed enemies” and fired back in self-defense. Iraqi authorities and witnesses claim the security personnel opened fire unprovoked. In October 2007, an oversight panel of the United States House of Representatives released a report indicating that Blackwater employees had been involved in at least 196 firefights in Iraq since 2005, an average of 1.4 shootings per week. In 84 of those cases, the report stated, Blackwater employees opened fire first, despite contract stipulations to make use of force only in self-defense. Unfortunately, the case of Blackwater is not an exception. Other PMSC have been reported to be involved in such incidents, in particular the killing of four women in Kirkuk and the involvement in a shooting of employees of another PMSC protecting a convoy, in central Baghdad, which left two Iraqi women dead.4 This type of incidents involving PMSC has been prevalent in the reconstruction of Iraq since its 2003 occupation: other PMSC have also been involved in similar incidents. Outsourcing military and security functions has an inherent danger in losing State control over the use of force. In Iraq, by Order 17 issued by the Administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority on 27 June 2004, contractors are immune from prosecution. PMSCs often operate outside government control and with limited effective oversight from State organs. They provide services from interrogation to strategic intelligence in a field that is a key aspect of waging war and may not only cause torture and inhumane treatment but violate rights such as freedom of movement and privacy. When involved in crimes or human rights violations, these private security guards have not been sanctioned or brought before a court of justice, as exemplified by the involvement of contractors in torture and shootings against civilians in Iraq. The employees of two PMSCs who were involved in human rights abuses in the prison of Abu Ghraib in 2003 have never been subject to external investigations nor legally sanctioned, despite assurances given by the Government of the United States of America. U.S.

2/16/19

JF T- Nebel

Tournament: Berkeley | Round: 2 | Opponent: Harvard Westlake CC | Judge: Ben BarovA. The aff may not defend stopping military aid only in Saudi Arabia- they must defend the abolition of US aid in all authoritarian regimes.

The term “authoritarian regimes” is a bare plural and can only be defended generally- specific regime affirmatives do not affirm.Nebel, 19: “Existential Bare Plurals and Quantifier Scope by Jake Nebel” Victory Briefs Institute Jake Nebel is a PhD candidate in philosophy at New York University, executive director at Victory Briefs, and (starting fall 2019) assistant professor of philosophy at the University of Southern California. SMLet’s start with some background. “Authoritarian regimes” is a bare plural: it’s a plural noun phrase without an explicit determiner (e.g., “five,” “some,” “all,” “the,” “most”). Bare plurals are typically used to express generic generalizations, as in “Ravens are black.” Unlike universally quantified statements, generics tolerate exceptions. For example, “Ravens are black” is true even though “All ravens are black” is false. In addition to generic readings, bare plurals can also sometimes have existential readings, as if they were preceded by “some.” For example, “Ravens are outside” is true just in case there are some ravens—i.e., more than one—outside. Unlike existential statements, generic generalizations are not entailed by specific instances. For example, the generic “Ravens are white” is false even though some ravens are indeed white; white ravens are white not because they are ravens but because they have leucism. For reasons I’ve given elsewhere, and which apply straightforwardly to this topic, I think “authoritarian regimes” is a generic bare plural, not an existential one. My reasons include that it fails the upward-entailment test for existential bare plurals (the resolution doesn’t entail that the United States ought not provide military aid to governments, even though all authoritarian regimes are governments); (ii) that bare plurals denote kinds of things, not specific members of those kinds, and so get an existential reading only in very specific circumstances which don’t seem to obtain in this resolution; (iii) that generics are our default means of generalization, especially in moral contexts, so we should expect the resolution to be generic absent strong evidence to the contrary; and, most importantly, (iv) that we can simply tell that it’s generic by linguistic intuition, which is the primary source of data for linguistic theorizing. The generic interpretation implies that many affirmative advocacies—those that specify particular authoritarian regimes to which the United States ought not provide military aid, leaving open the possibility of providing aid to all other authoritarian regimes—do not affirm the resolution, because generic generalizations are not entailed by specific instances.1 To affirm the resolution, regime-specific affirmatives require an existential interpretation of “authoritarian regimes,” which is incorrect. In this article, however, I want to suppose for the sake of argument that the existential interpretation is correct, and argue that regime-specific affirmatives—even those that specify more than one regime—still violate the existential interpretation. In the course of laying out the argument, we’ll learn about an idea of crucial importance to both philosophy and linguistics—the concept of quantifier scope—and, rather than finish my dissertation, I’d like to introduce debaters to that idea. To introduce the concept of scope, consider the sentence, Every student read some book. This sentence is ambiguous between two interpretations. On one interpretation, (1) says that there is some book b such that, for every student s, s read b. On this interpretation, the universal quantifier “every” is within the scope of the existential quantifier “some”; the existential quantifier has wider scope than the universal quantifier. This wide-scope interpretation of “some book” requires every student to have read the same book. On another interpretation, (1) says that, for every student s, there is some book b such that s read b. On this interpretation, the existential quantifier is within the scope of the universal quantifier; the existential quantifier has narrower scope than the universal quantifier. This narrow-scope interpretation of “some book” allows each student to have read a different book. Let’s apply this distinction to the existential interpretation of “authoritarian regimes.” The question is: what is the scope of the allegedly existential “authoritarian regimes” with respect to “ought not”? If it takes narrow scope, the resolution would mean roughly the same thing as, It ought not be the case that there are authoritarian regimes to which the United States provides military aid. On this reading, the affirmative has to argue that there ought to be no authoritarian regimes to which the U.S. provides aid. Not only does the narrow-scope reading not allow the affirmative to specify a particular set of authoritarian regimes; it requires the affirmative to advocate something with respect to all authoritarian regimes. This is even stronger than the generic reading! This happens, in short, because the negation of an existentially quantified statement (it’s not the case that some x is F) is the universal generalization of a negation (every x is not F—i.e., no x is F). Regime-specific affirmatives therefore violate the narrow-scope reading. By contrast, on a wide-scope reading, the resolution would mean roughly the same thing as, There are authoritarian regimes such that it ought not be the case that the United States provides military aid to those regimes. This convoluted claim is not exactly an attractive interpretation of the resolution. For one thing, there already are authoritarian regimes to which the United States doesn’t provide military aid, so the resolution surprisingly recommends a state of affairs that already obtains. But, more importantly, (3) is just obvious and uncontroversial. Who seriously denies that there are someauthoritarian regimes to which the United States shouldn’t provide military aid? It is prima facieextremely unlikely that the intended or actual meaning of a debate resolution would be an obvious and uncontroversial proposition that recommends the status quo. Unlikely, yet not impossible, you might say. But there’s a much bigger problem for the wide-scope existential reading: existential bare plurals just can’t take wide scope. It is independently andcross-linguistically established that existential bare plurals can only receive narrow scope readings; they do not give rise to scope ambiguities. Consider, for example, Every student read philosophy books. Sam did not read philosophy books. In these sentences, the bare plural “philosophy books” is existential, not generic. We might therefore expect that, like “some book” in (1), it could take either narrow or wide scope with respect to the universal quantifier in (4) and the negation operator in (5). But it can’t. It can only take narrow scope. (4) says that, for every student, there are philosophy books that the student read (narrow scope), not that there are philosophy books such that every student read those books (wide scope); there is no reading of (4) that requires every student to have read the same books. And (5) says that it’s not the case that there are philosophy books that Sam read (narrow scope), not merely that there are philosophy books that Sam didn’t read (wide scope); there is no reading of (5) on which it’s true even if Sam has read all but two philosophy books ever written. Here is one way to observe this constraint in the context of the resolution. Consider the sentence, The United States ought to provide military aid to authoritarian regimes and the United States ought not provide military aid to authoritarian regimes. This sentence expresses a contradiction (or, at least, a hard moral dilemma in which the United States can’t help but do what it shouldn’t). But if “authoritarian regimes” is an existential bare plural that can take wide scope, then (6) should have a reading on which it means that some authoritarian regimes are such that the United States ought to give them military aid and that some (i.e., possibly different) authoritarian regimes are such that the United States ought not give them military aid—which is perfectly consistent, not contradictory. It has no such reading. This shows that, even if existential bare plurals could take wide scope in principle, and even if “authoritarian regimes” is an existential bare plural, it could not take wide scope in the context of the resolution. We can now put the argument together. Affirmatives that restrict their advocacy to particular regimes require a wide-scope existential interpretation of “authoritarian regimes,” as in (3). But, even if such an interpretation were attractive, existential bare plurals can only receive narrow scope. On a narrow-scope existential reading, as in (2), the resolution would say that it shouldn’t be the case that there are authoritarian regimes to which the United States provides military aid—in other words, that the United States should provide military aid to no authoritarian regimes. This interpretation is even stronger than the generic interpretation, and is violated by affirmatives that restrict their advocacy to particular regimes. So regime-specific affirmatives do not even meet the existential interpretation of “authoritarian regimes.” To affirm the resolution, proponents of regime-specific affirmatives must show that the bare plural “authoritarian regimes,” as it occurs in the resolution, has an existential reading, (ii) that existential bare plurals can take wide scope, and (iii) that a wide-scope existential reading of thisresolution is at all attractive, despite rendering the resolution obvious and uncontroversial. None of these claims seems to me very plausible, and I think it’s safe to conclude that not all of them are true. But even if they are—even if “authoritarian regimes” can and should take a wide-scope existential reading—I suspect that what many proponents of regime-specific affirmatives really want is for single-regime affirmatives, which advocate that the United States not provide military aid to some one authoritarian regime, to affirm the resolution. Even on a wide-scope existential reading, though, single-regime advocacies do not affirm the resolution because existential bare plurals are still plurals: they require more than one witnessing instance. No matter how wonderful it would be to debate such affirmatives, allowing them is no advantage of the wide-scope existential reading. The resolution simply has no reading on which single-regime advocacies affirm the resolution. You can’t always get what you want.

K2 jurisdiction—they’re aff but not affirming the res. That’s an independent voter that comes prior to offense on C/I: it’s impossible to determine outside the context of the resolution bc the ballot only has aff and neg on it, not some third category of “most educational

Violation- They defend the stopping of military aid in Standar only, not in all authoritarian regimesStandards:

Ground

TVA solves- read Saudi Arabia as an advantage ground

D. VotersFairnessEducation

Drop the debater: Norm setting Deters future abuse

Use competing interps, 1) Race to bottom 2) judge intervention

2/16/19

MA K - Public Health

Tournament: TFA State | Round: 1 | Opponent: Burleson Centennial HM | Judge: Isaac ChaoPublic health movement is rooted in neoimperialism.Holley, 2017 https://dickey.dartmouth.edu/news-events/racism-thwarts-global-public-health, April 16, 2017 | The Valley News, By EmmaJean Holley, Valley New Staff WriterHanover — Global health leaders grappled with the irony of gathering at Dartmouth College to discuss the urgent situations faced by some of the poorest populations in the world.How, attendees of the Leila and Melville Straus 1960 Family Symposium asked, could health care providers surmount barriers of privilege and racism by learning from the errors of a global health regime that went hand-in-hand with imperialism? The day-long event on Wednesday, titled “Global Health in an Era of De-Globalization,” offered no easy answers.In fact, the roots of the global health movement are inextricably linked to imperialism itself, said Nils Daulaire, a distinguished visiting scholar in global health at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and senior fellow at the Harvard Global Health Institute who participated in one of the symposium’s panel discussions.“It was the thought that we can fix them by making them more like us. In these cases, we are sadly reminded of the use of biological warfare as a means of essentially clearing the land,” he said, adding that these initiatives were geared less toward ensuring the good health of indigenous populations and more toward streamlining the empire’s systematic extraction of resources from the land and its people.Daulaire, who previously led the Upper Valley-based Global Health Council and served as an assistant secretary for global affairs at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services during the Obama administration, said the era of imperialism in global health peaked along with the British empire in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.But the effects of imperialism are not confined to its heyday, said Richard Horton, editor-in-chief of the British medical journal The Lancet.“Imperialism isn’t over. It isn’t some relic of the past. It’s just been re-invented in different forms,” he said, adding that giving the phenomenon a name — “neo-imperialism” — is one way for leaders to hold themselves accountable for continuing to operate under paternalistic frameworks of care.Horton delivered the keynote speech later that day, on “Planetary Health: Perils and Possibilities for Human Civilization.”The consequences of neo-imperialism in global health are prevalent even in the Arctic region, where some of the wealthiest countries still struggle to provide adequate care to its indigenous, largely low-income communities, said Susan Chatwood, executive and scientific director of the Institute for Circumpolar Health Research.“There is tremendous loss of culture, loss of livelihood, loss of traditional diet and sources of nutrition — and, as a result, we’ve seen an explosion in rates of substance abuse, suicide and non-communicable disease,” such as heart disease, Chatwood said.Michelle Morse, the founding co-director of the nonprofit organization EqualHealth, said she also saw this in her work with cholera patients in Haiti. The cholera epidemic originated with the arrival of United Nations troops from Nepal, who came to Haiti to help restore political stability after President Jean-Bertrand Aristide was deposed in 2004. Though Morse commended the good intent of the U.N. workers, she said that the fact that they were asymptomatic carriers of cholera resulted in the loss of some 10,000 Haitian lives in the eight years she spent working there.In those eight years, she said, not once was the specter of racism addressed — something she said she would like to see changed in future generations of global health leaders.“So much of what you see in global health initiatives is people in the U.S., who are not people of color, going to places where there are people of color, and not bringing that structural analysis of why they need to be there in the first place, or thinking about their own prejudices,” she said. “Not to say that they are racists — just that racism is built into all of our structures in America, because that is our history.”This racism can often manifest itself toward populations that are more vulnerable to transmittable disease, said Martin Cetron, director of global migration and quarantine at the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, citing the Ebola and Zika epidemics.

Turns case and outweighs:a) Propagate same racist mentality - lack of structural analysis of different factors within each country destroys ability to engage and create positive changea. Links: use the CDC as your solvency advocate, the UN -large orgnaizations b) Historical legacy of movement outweighs specific instances of public health being good- structural role of biology in policymaking being used to clear the land and extract resources OW on probabilityAlternative “rehabilitation” is code for indefinite torture, shock and isolation – it’s violent normalization Ben-Moshe, 2011 Critical Sociology, http://crs.sagepub.com/, Disabling Incarceration: Connecting Disability to Divergent Confinements in the USA, Liat Ben-Moshe, Crit Sociol published online 20 December 2011 DOI: 10.1177/0896920511430864, The online version of this article can be found at: http://crs.sagepub.com/content/early/2011/12/19/0896920511430864, Published by: http://www.sagepublications.com, Disabling Incarceration: Connecting Disability to Divergent Confinements in the USA, Liat Ben-Moshe, University of Illinois at Chicago, USA

This article suggests the merits of conceptualizing incarceration as including institutionalization in a wide variety of enclosed settings, including prisons, jails, institutions for the intellectually disabled, treatment centers, and psychiatric hospitals. Such formulations conceptualize incarceration as a continuum and a multi-faceted phenomenon. This article will highlight the importance of moving beyond analogies between criminalization, institutionalization and psychiatrization to discuss the intersection of these phenomena, by highlighting several social science perspectives that have integrated these spheres already; taking up an analysis of the political economy of incarceration; and re-examining the reality of prisoners with disabilities in the growing prison machine. Lastly, I propose a re-examination of the forces of trans-incarceration, the move from one carceral edifice such as a psychiatric hospital to another such as a jail. I will demonstrate the ways in which engaging in such intersectional analysis changes the lens from which disability and incarceration are conceptualized and analyzed. Keywords disability, intersectionality, mental health, political economy, prisons, critical theory Introduction There has been much recent interest among social scientists in the issue of ‘mass incarceration’ (see for instance Garland, 2001; Gilmore, 2006; Gottschalk, 2006; Pager, 2009; Sim, 2009; Wacquant, 2009; Western, 2006). For the most part, this surge in scholarship, analysis and calls for reform does not include analysis of disability and ableism. One area of sociological analysis that seems to encompass incarceration and disability is in accounts that depict imprisonment of those with psychiatric and developmental disabilities as related to a perceived failure of the policy of deinstitutionalization (see Crissey and Rosen, 1986; Dear and Wolch, 1987; Isaac and Armat, 1990; Johnson, 1990; Torrey, 1996; Wacquant, 2009), which will be discussed and cri- tiqued later in relation to forces of trans-incarceration. Another exception to this lacuna is the work of Bernard Harcourt (2006, 2011), which connects research on hospitalization in psychiat- ric hospitals to research on the growth of the prison machine in the USA.On the other hand, the vast literature in the growing field of disability studies has paid very little attention to the imprisonment of people with disabilities, especially in North America. One notable exception is work on institutionalization and hospitalization of people with a variety of impairments, written from sociological, historical and phenomenological perspectives (for example Ferguson, 1994; Johnson, 1998; Reaume, 2000). However, very little attention has been given to other forms of incarceration in relation to disability – especially to the increased reliance of the state on prisons and jails, and there is a lack of connection between disability studies litera- ture and the various sociological analyses of the prison-industrial complex, mentioned above.Although disability studies is a diverse and interdisciplinary field, it seems that it often has a sociological orientation interested in the lived experiences of those with disabilities. Yet there is little research about the lived experience of those incarcerated in a variety of settings including prisons and jails, and analysis of the forces of imprisonment from a disability perspective. Sociology, at least in one of its formulations, should be concerned with finding the people where they are located and explaining their circumstances in ways that they might not be able to see from their location, or garnering people’s lived knowledge about their location, which may be unfamiliar to outsiders. Both of these interpretations could be connected back to C. Wright Mills’s formula- tion of the sociological imagination as the ability and the desire to connect one’s ‘personal trouble’ to ‘public issues’ (Mills, 1959). If sociology and disability studies are indeed concerned with both the lived experience of disabled people and the ‘matrix of domination’ (Collins, 2000) that sustain ableism, then I propose they need to pay attention to processes of incarceration and imprisonment as major ‘public issues’ taking place within the global North and South (albeit in different ways). I thus call for a tighter connection between the sociology of disability, or the study of the ontology and phenomenological experiences of disabled people and analysis of ableism, and the critical sociological study of incarceration.This article will offer several connecting points through which disability and incarceration could be studied. The first is a brief overview of several social science perspectives that have integrated these spheres already. The second takes up an analysis of the political economy of incarceration, encompassing prisons and jails but also institutions and nursing homes. The third connecting point lies in the intersection of incarceration and disability – the reality of prisoners with disabilities in the growing prison machine, especially in North America. Lastly, I propose a re-examination of the forces of trans-incarceration, or the move from one carceral edifice such as a psychiatric hospital to another such as a jail. This analysis will pave the way to a broader and deeper understanding of what incarceration entails, in its varied forms. What underpins all these arguments is the idea that incarceration should be perceived as a continuum, ranging from prisons and jails to institutions for the intellectually disabled,1 and psychiatric hospitals. I therefore advocate an interpretation of incarceration that yields an analysis which is both nuanced and inter- sectional from its outset.Broadening the Scope of IncarcerationThe need to combine the discussion on current levels of imprisonment with discussion and data about institutionalization, hospitalization and disablement is imperative for practical, empirical and theoretical reasons. The most pressing is the need to expand on notions of what comes to be classified as ‘incarceration’. This article suggests the merits of conceptualizing incarceration as including institutionalization in a wide variety of enclosed settings, including prisons, jails, detention centers, institutions for the intellectually disabled, treatment centers, and psychiatric hospitals. Such formulations conceptualize incarceration as a continuum and a multi-faceted phenomenon. This analysis is especially pressing because of the immense growth of the prison machine in the USA.For the first time in US history, in 2008, more than one in 100 American adults was behind bars. In 2009 the adult incarcerated population in prisons and jails in the USA had reached 2,284,900 according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS, 2010). The USA incarcerates a greater share of its population, 737 per 100,000 residents, than any other country on the planet (Pew Center, 2008). Another whopping 5,018,900 people are under ‘community corrections,’ which include parole and probation (BJS, 2010). Race, gender and disability play a significant role in incarceration rates. In 2006, Caucasians/whites were imprisoned at a rate of 409 per 100,000 residents; Latinos at 1038 per 100,000 and African-Americans at 2468 per 100,000. The rate for women was 134 per 100,000 residents and for men, 1384 per 100,000. In 2005 more than half of all prison and jail inmates were reported as having a mental health problem. Nearly a quarter of both state prisoners and jail inmates who had a mental health problem, compared to a fifth of those without, had served three or more prior incarcerations (Prison Policy Initiative, 2008). The number of carceral edifices in the USA had grown as well. From 2000 to 2005, the number of state and federal correctional facilities increased by 9 percent, from 1668 to 1821 (BJS, 2008).In contrast to the constant expansion of prisons, deinstitutionalization and institution closure have been a major policy trend in most US states in the past few decades. Deinstitutionalization of people who were labeled as ‘mentally ill’ began in the 1950s. The deinstitutionalization in the field of ‘mental retardation’ gained prominence in the 1970s, although this of course varied by state. The population of people with intellectual disabilities living in large public institutions peaked at 194,650 in 1967. By 2004, this number had declined to 41,653 (Prouty et al., 2005). The trend in deinstitutionalization for people with intellectual disabilities was accompanied by institutional closures across most states. By 2009, the District of Columbia, Alaska, Hawaii, Maine, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Rhode Island, Vermont, and West Virginia had closed all of their public institutions for people with developmental disabilities (Lakin et al., 2010). In con- trast, 13 states have not closed any such public institutions (Braddock, 2002).An accompanying shift occurred in the field of mental health with the establishment of the community mental health centers in the 1960s and the closure of large state mental hospitals in most major cities. In 1955, the state mental health population was 559,000, nearly as large on a per capita basis as the prison population today. By 2000, it had fallen to below 100,000, a drop of more than 90 percent (Gottschalk, 2010; Harcourt, 2011). Deinstitutionalization in the field of developmental disabilities occurred about 12 years after the deinstitutionalization of public mental hospitals, and the rate of reduction of use of these facilities was also significantly different between the two processes. In the first 10 years of deinstitutionalization for traditional institutions for those labeled as ‘mentally retarded’, the institutionalized population was reduced by 30 percent and then averaged about 11 percent a year during the 1970s. At its height, between 1955 and 1965, the deinstitutionalization in psychiatric hospitals reduced the populations by 15 percent only (Lerman, 1985).Over the years, some of the figures given for deinstitutionalization of public institutions have been misleading, as significant proportions of people were transferred to other types of institutions including nursing homes. In 2009, for instance, 12,475 people with developmental disabilities lived in state operated community residential settings with 15 or fewer residents. In addition, between 1977 and 2009, the total number of residential settings in which people with developmen- tal disabilities received residential services grew from 11,008 to an estimated 173,042, an increase of 1500 percent (Lakin et al., 2010). Because most of these newer settings are much smaller than the massive institutions of previous decades, they are not typically counted as ‘institutional’ placements, but due to their daily routines and other aspects of life in these settings, many people with disabilities, family members, and advocates consider them to be mini-institutions within the community (Center on Human Policy, 2004).From this critical intersection, it may not be surprising to also learn that physically, many institutions for those labeled as psychiatrically or developmentally disabled that closed down during the 1980s actually re-opened a few years later as prisons. Alabama turned three-quarters of its closed institutions (which closed in 2003) into correctional facilities (the fourth quarter’s use is undetermined). Illinois closed seven institutions, two of which became correctional facili- ties and a third a women’s prison. New York State had the absolute largest number of institutions in the USA, seventeen of which closed between 1970 and 2010. Most of them were left as is, with future usage undetermined, but at least two became correctional facilities (Braddock et al., 2008). These figures, although not comprehensive by any means, serve to highlight the cyclical nature of social control and the persistent nature of incarceration as a strategy to categorize and keep out ‘undesirable’ populations.I want to be clear here, that proposing a more thoroughly ‘intersectional’ history is distinct from proposing that ableism and racism, or asylums and prisons, are the same. It is the similarities and the distinctions that are important to attend to, in terms of rationalizations, in terms of practices associated with them, and also in terms of the effects on the people who are incarcerated in diverse sites of confinement. For example, the criminal justice system seems to offer certain protections to the accused and the prisoner, such as due process during the trial and sentencing procedures, a sentence of a specified duration. However, medical institutions allow the compulsory admittance of patients against their will based only on a medical diagnosis, an indefinite time of commitment, and ‘treatments’ that are both painful and harmful, such as extended periods of isolation, physical restraints, and electric shock ‘therapy’. In addition, the government and the public assume medical ‘treatment’ is in the best interests of both the patient and society, and great autonomy is given to physicians to determine the best course of treatment (Conrad and Schneider, 1992; Goffman, 1961; Snyder and Mitchell, 2006). Incarceration in prisons, however, seems to be operating more under the discourses of punishment and retribution, rather than rehabilitation. This framework has its own lethal effects on the lives of those incarcerated and formerly incarcerated, but it does not nec- essarily operate under the same processes as medicalized settings, although both settings have many similarities (Chapman et al., forthcoming).Connecting Institutionalization and Imprisonment in the Social SciencesOn a theoretical level, the imperative to understand incarceration through both the prism of the prison but also that of the institution, as this article suggests, is crucial to understanding the underlying relations that legitimate confinement in a variety of settings. Such analysis also under- scores the relation between penal and medical notions of danger, as they relate to both criminal- ization and medicalization and labeling. Historically, the connection between imprisonment and definitions of ‘abnormality’ seems to have arisen out of a new configuration of notions of danger. From the 19th century the webs of the medical and the judicial start to intertwine with the rise of a hybrid discourse, according to Foucault (2003). Its hybridity lies not just in the sense of amalgamation of several discourses (legal, medical) but also in the creation of a new power/ knowledge structure in which ‘doctors laying claim to judicial power and judges laying claim to medical power’ (2003: 39) lay down an intertwined system of surveillance, which includes psy- chiatric progress reports on the incarcerated, examination in court of the accused, and surveil- lance of ‘at risk’ groups. According to Foucault (2003), this medico-judicial discourse does not originate from medicine or law or in between, but from another external discourse – that of abnormality. The power of normalization is cloaked by medical notions of illness and legal notions of recidivism. The history of treatment and categorization of those labeled as feeble- minded, and later mentally retarded, is also paved with cobblestones of notions of social danger, as prominent eugenicists tried to ‘scientifically’ establish that those whom they characterized as feebleminded had a tendency to commit violent crimes. In the late 19th century, as the eugenics movement gained momentum, it was declared that all feebleminded people were potential criminals (Rafter, 1997; Trent, 1995).Spaces of confinement themselves, such as psychiatric hospitals, poorhouses, prisons and insti- tutions for those labeled as ‘mentally retarded’, could also be perceived as operating on similar logic, from a variety of perspectives. Foucault analyzes their discursive formations and effects as docile making and producing techniques of governance and social control (1995). The ‘remarkable continuity of confinement’ (Harcourt, 2006) is also discussed as part of a revisionist social history of places of confinement, offered by Rothman (1971), Grob (1972, 1983), Scull (1979, 1989) and Foucault (1965, 1987, 1995) and amended by feminist historians and criminologists such as Rafter (2004) and Kurshan (1996). The revisionist narrative marked a shift from perspectives that saw asylums and prisons as reforming and benevolent, to more nuanced accounts that critiqued both the consequences and intentions of reform efforts that ended in mass incarceration. Interestingly, this neo-historiography of the institution and prison was written, and battled, by historians and other intellectuals at a time when these institutions started to lose their legitimacy. Most of these accounts were produced in the 1960s and 1970s when larger exposes, lawsuits, novels, movies and ethnog- raphies came out to reveal the decrepit conditions of asylums, hospitals and prisons. These included Erving Goffman’s Asylums (1961), the novel made into a Hollywood film One flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest (Kesey, 1962), Burton Blatt’s exposé Christmas in Purgatory (Blatt and Kaplan, 1974), the riots in Attica prison, and lawsuits on behalf of prisoners and inmates in state institu- tions. Therefore, the debates over the reasons and usefulness of asylums in the past should be read as directly tied to debates over decarceration and re-institutionalization at present. The premise that all these writings share is an understanding of incarceration as a continuum and not an isolated phenomenon that can be understood by engaging with only one locale.Goffman’s analysis became a popularized sociological account that analyzed all such edifices as ‘total institutions,’ in which the incarcerated populations are subjected to stripping of their identities and processes of dehumanization (Goffman, 1961). In addition, the citizenship and personhood of those incarcerated is questioned when living in such institutions. This can be done in the form of taking away or denying voting rights, as is the case for felons and many people with labels of intellectual disabilities, or for women, denying reproductive rights when living in pris- ons and nursing homes. These populations were also targets of medical experiments in institu- tions and prisons. Such connections, which stress the similarities of total institutions beg us also to emphasize the importance of moving away from analogies (institutions are like prisons for example) into thinking more intersectionally about their interrelated nature.

Turns the aff and outweighs- forms of violence propagated via alternative modes of therapy and biopolitical control are secretive and more unaccountable than the squo - OW on reversibility, cycles of psychological violence affect victim permanently and on magnitude- thousands of people affected by the system

Reject the political of the realm of public health and pharma control – it’s part of the hyperbolic war on terror that treats life itself as a threat to justify endless violenceThacker, 5 – Assistant Professor in the School of Literature, Communication, and Culture at the Georgia Institute of Technology(Eugene, “Nomos, Nosos and Bios”, Culture Machine, http://culturemachine.tees.ac.uk/Cmach/Backissues/j007/Articles/thacker.htm)

Nevertheless, the ongoing development (and funding) of various surveillance initiatives illustrates the degree to which the broad concept of biodefense has come to include both bioterrorism and epidemics in a unique zone of indistinction. This implosion has been made explicit in the way that the U.S. government speaks of biodefense. Consider President Bush’s remarks in his 2001 State of the Union address: ‘Disease has long been the deadliest enemy of mankind … . We have fought the causes and consequences of disease throughout history and must continue to do so with every available means. All civilized nations reject as intolerable the use of disease and biological weapons as instruments of war and terror’ (U.S. White House, 2002). At a press conference announcing the Biosurveillance Project, HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson noted that ‘these new investments will not only better prepare our nation for, and protect us from, a bioterrorism attack, they will also better prepare us for any public health emergency. In fact, we’ve already seen our investments pay off last year in CDC’s leadership in fighting the SARS outbreak, and a coordinated public health response to the West Nile Virus’ (U.S. DHS, 2004).No one will deny the real threats posed by emerging infectious disease, and the limited but demonstrated effectiveness of bioterrorism; that is, obviously, not what is at issue here. What is at stake is the manner in which U.S. biodefense policy has created an atmosphere in which it is impossible to distinguish national security from public health, war from medicine, terror from biological ‘life.’ The inordinate amount of funding and emphasis given to biodefense nearly suggests that public health can only be improved through the condition of permanent exception that is war, that the health of the population can only be improved by continually targeting the population as biologically vulnerable. In the case of U.S. biodefense policy, the perspective of necrology shows us that the current biopolitical state of emergency is maintained by constantly producing the virtual dissolution of the body politic. Here, security, defense, and medicine fold in to a single problem: how to identify any and all threats to the ‘life’ of the population, such that prevention and preemption will coincide perfectly. The threat to the body politic is also the threat to the collective body natural, and thus the threat to ‘life itself’ is also ‘life itself’; the threat to the medico-political conception of the state is, at some basic level, biology. The very concept of biological warfare implies this – biology is the weapon, the means, and the target all at once. U.S. biodefense policy is actually a philosophical, even existential statement: that, be it an intentional bioterrorist attack or an unintentional epidemic, the common threat to the population is ‘life itself.’ By definition, this undeclared ‘war on biology’ is without end, precisely because ‘life itself’ is constantly threatened with its own end.In a sense, however, this biopolitical situation is to be found wherever a governmentality of public health confronts a medical emergency that is also a perceived political emergency (war, famine, epidemic, natural disaster). Indeed, the historical examples Foucault gives of biopolitics all suggest that public health always develops in a state of exception. The situation of U.S. biodefense today is, in this sense, no different. What is unique about the situation today is that the way in which that state of exception is governed. Today, over and above the networks of infection and transportation that make epidemics and bioterrorism possible, we are witnessing a network of communication and information that is deployed as a countermeasure. The CDC’s NEDSS combats West Nile virus, the WHO’s network combats SARS. Networks fighting networks. Today, it is information or code that mediates between war and biology. Computer databases at hospitals, information networks transmitting real-time health data, protocols surrounding the handling of medical data in relation to insurance companies, FDA approval of new vaccines for anthrax and other bioweapons, investment in pharmaceutical RandD, and the use of high-tech diagnostics technologies (pharmacogenomics, DNA microarrays), will all be used in this biopolitics.We can move, then, from biology to necrology. In doing so, we point to the complicated layers of analogy, metaphor, and artifact in the U.S. biodefense ontology. Disease accounts for social ills, but in the form of epidemics it is a social ill. War provides the interpretive lens through which to metaphorize medicine, as well as to literalize the technology of biological weapons and bioterrorism. War and disease impact each other, and infect each other, in ways that are at once metaphorical, material, and artifactual. In this regard, a necrological perspective is worth thinking about as the boundary between bioterror and epidemic is blurred, for it raises the key issue of how a notion of ‘life itself’ is mobilized to guarantee sovereignty in the age of biopolitics.Colonialist biopolitical control empirically led to awful impacts like genocide, slavery that outweigh on scope and magnitude - look at US biopolitical control over natives when they arrived- decimated much of the population

Alternative is to reject the affirmative’s starting point through a perspective that transcends methodological nationalism – this is key to challenging myth of western biopolitical superiority in public health and providing agency to those struggling against colonial fantasies. Recognize the role of colonialism within public health as the starting pointLang, 1: “Public health and colonialism: a new or old problem?” Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health Centre for Food Policy, Wolfson Institute of Health Sciences, Thames Valley University, 32–38 Uxbridge Road, Ealing, London W5 2BS, United KingdomIn this context, the use of the term “colonialism” should be welcomed back into debate about public health. Although it grates and is probably a little crude, it points to a core truth about the social determinants of health. The forces that systematically mould and influence health are humanly factored, socially influenced and unequal. This is not to deny the immense strides in understanding about genetic or other biophysical mechanisms. On the contrary, the more such pathways are understood, the more important it is to appreciate the social factors that can make or manage them. The challenge laid down by the New Public Health—which is in fact rather old now (first referenced in 1911!)—is that policy and human actions can make a considerable difference to health outcomes. This being the case, the grand sweep of historical forces once again become pertinent. We are so easily focused on minutiae in our professional and everyday lives that we cannot see the wood for the trees, to use that English phrase. Like “class”, the word “colonialism” resonates with meanings from an older social order, a period and centuries marked by great political tussles in which huge historical dynamics could be identified. The proponents of post-modernity sometime imply that these older words described a social reality that no longer exists.6 Colonialism, class, power, state intervention, etc, derive, they argue, from an obsolete lexicon. Differences among people are reduced to individual factors, chance or genetics. History itself, siren voices argue, has stopped, with the triumph of the West.7 Who could disagree that we live through a period of astonishing change? Yet the power of the information age—with its surfeit of data—enables us now to see the post-modern Emperor for what it is.8Class, colonialism, social tension not only never went; they merely changed their clothes. The amazing gap between rich and poor within and between societies is well documented. There are 1.2 billion people living on US$1 per day.9 Meanwhile, the top 200 billionaires doubled their wealth in 1994–98 and just three of their number have more wealth than the combined GNP of all least developed countries, a total of 600 million people.10 Michael Jordan, a US athlete, was paid US$20 million for endorsing Nike trainers, more than the entire workforce was paid for making them.11 His wealth, their health? Should we be surprised that after huge gains in life expectancy in the 1970s, it is now slipping? Or that 800 million children globally are under-nourished or that 2 billion people exhibit effects of poor diet?12 Our era is not neo-colonial; it is more neo-mediaeval. A new global class structure has quietly unfolded in which epidemiologists and all social researchers need to look beyond national or regional boundaries to see similarities of experience. The rich of Mumbai, India and Manchester, England may have more in common with each other than their neighbouring poor and the same may be true for the poor. If epidemiology is to grasp this reality as an explanatory tool, it must expand both its spatial units and conceptual boundaries, in the way it is already being asked to do in relation to the borders of environmental and human health.13 Social scientists studying food have for decades been pointing to gaps between developed and developing worlds. It is now time to look within as well as between. New comparative partnerships are the key to methodologies. Health realities need to be explored on four levels (local, national, regional and global) and new professional intersectoral collaboration are needed. This is easy to write, but hard to do. Academic discourse has been put onto a treadmill of contracts and business. For 20 years, since a neo-liberal orthodoxy triumphed in Western politics and economic management,14 dissident voices have been hushed. The intellectual space for criticism diminished, in part because of funding, work schedules, etc, and in part because of specialisation and exhaustion. But civil society, in particular Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs), is leading the way in rolling back this shroud. At Seattle, in December 1999, an unforeseen alliance of public interest groups came together to protest at the new order. Having failed to get even token reforms into the 1994 Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), they were left only with the right to protest. They brought to a halt the latest round of what Watkins memorably called “fixing the rules”.15 Suddenly, space to debate is emerging. While the “realists” argued that globalisation cannot be stopped, the Seattle movements remind us that social reality is made not given. All who work to promote public health need to seize this chance and debate core ideas and themes. We need to be unashamedly partisan in promoting public, not just individual, health and to rediscover our roots in social medicine. We need to engage with thorny governance issues, siding with the health democrats over the control tendency. Our role is to promote policy integration over fragmentation, and to provide an evidence base for just and equitable public policy and practice. This can only be done by recognising not disguising the raw inequalities of power that were unfolded by the neo-liberal project geo-spatially, in both North and South, East and West.

Reject the SQ capitalist, militarized culture of American violence devalues life based upon a racist, heteronormative order in which pharmaceutical companies work with the military industrial complex to ensure endless war and destruction – the ROB is to endorse the debater who begins from a starting point of ethics that reject biopolitical violence – international solidarity movements proveCampbell, 2003 http://muse.jhu.edu.libproxy.wustl.edu/journals/radical_history_review/v085/85.1campbell.pdf, Radical History Review, Issue 85, Winter 2003, pp. 24-36 (Article), http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/rhr/summary/v085/85.1campbell.html, Beyond Militarism and Terrorism in the Biotech Century: Toward a Culture of Peace and Transformation, Horace CampbellThis analysis examines the conditions for moving beyond the devaluation of human lives in order to achieve radical transformations creating new forms of com- munity and association able to unleash the creativity of the human spirit. This will be necessary for the revitalization of society away from militarism and the worship of profit. The present global war on terrorism is having a fundamental impact on world politics, and it is within this period of major political, economic, military, and social struggles that my discussion seeks to participate in the support of peace and healing. The history of racial genocide and crimes against humanity has been recounted in so many places that an international constituency has formed, deter- mined to push for peace and international justice. This constituency came together in the historic World Conference against Racism (WCAR) in Durban, South Africa, in September 2001. The forces against globalization, which had demonstrated their presence in Seattle, Nice, Gotenbourg, Genoa, Porto Alegre, and Durban, had exposed the fact that there was a positive force mobilized for peace. The WCAR was of seminal importance in the understanding that there was a renewed sense of soli- darity from the forces fighting for a culture of peace. There was a tacit agreement that the rebuilding of international solidarity constituted one of the essential condi- tions for the establishment of a world system more just than the one currently dom- inated by the United States. One component of the new peace movement is the demand for reparations. Militarism and the U.S. Capitalist System The major task of those who reject all forms of terrorism is to oppose the spread of U.S. military bases, military clients, intense military spending, and celebration of war at a time when the economic conditions of the vast majority of the population have worsened. Left unchallenged, military spending in the United States will exceed $2 trillion in the next four years. Despite the media’s misinformation, which insists on a recovering economy, the majority of low-income people have great difficulty meet- ing their basic needs, lack adequate health care, and do not have access to relevant education. No less a person than president and former general Dwight Eisenhower warned how weapons manufacturers were shaping the domestic, foreign, and diplo- matic policies of the United States. He was the first to use the formulation military- industrial complex.5 Since Eisenhower’s conjuncture, this complex has expanded into the communication and information arenas. Militarism has been defined as “the pervasiveness in society of symbols, val- ues and discourses validating military power, and preparation for war.”6 Usually North American scholars point to Third World countries with authoritarian leaders as examples of militaristic societies. These manifestations of militarism represent one brand, but the militarism of the imperial state is even more formidable than the powers of Third World dictators. Karl Liebknecht, the German revolutionary, rec- ognized the long history of warfare in all modes of production, but he also under- stood the specific relationship between “warfare and capitalism.”7 Scholars still study the impact of German militarism and the interconnections between warfare, eugen- ics, and fascism to grasp the ways in which capitalist competition and greed fueled war, imperial expansion, and genocide.8 The same glorification of war has now emerged in American culture, the same capitalist competition and the same efforts to control the known and potential resources of the planet. In a slow and pedantic manner, the European Union has sought to deepen the capitalist competition by creating a single currency to compete with the U.S. dollar. Although globalization has been the focus of U.S. financial hege- mony, with the resurgence of the European Union and the growing industrial and economic might of the fastest-growing economies, U.S. hegemony increasingly rests on the pillar of the military. An understanding of forward planning and war requires a fundamental grasp of contemporary militarism as the U.S. corporate and bureaucratic leaders prepare the population for wars in all corners of the globe in its fight against the so-called axis of evil.9 At the present conjuncture, where the world metamorphoses from the cen- tury of physics and chemistry into the biotech century, far-reaching technological changes with major implications for militarism have taken place. The explosion of information systems forms one component of the general explosion of technological change in a society still guided by the ideas of monopoly-capitalism militarism (or the era of steel and railways). The mechanical representation of life that emanated from this period of Taylorism had its impact on all aspects of U.S. life, including the military. Now, however, forward planning is compounded by the laws of unforeseen circumstances and the complexity of the present international system. This com- plexity emanates from the multifaceted nature of life and the reality that social phe- nomena have become far removed from the kind of simplicity, predictability, and determinism associated with the Newtonian machine. Despite the tremendous technological changes that have occurred from the era of iron and steel through the nuclear era to the present era of biotechnology and hydrogen fuel cells, the methods of organizing social life are still based on the ideas of Adam Smith. Urban spaces and the organization of production, consumption, education, and leisure continue to center around the idea of the market’s invisible hands, racial hierarchy, and male privilege without regard for the health and safety of the majority. At the level of the factory, the technological revolution has changed the nature of assembly-line production so that the massive number of workers needed at the end of the Second World War is no longer necessary.10 The deindustrialization of society and the massive layoffs of workers spawned the revitalization of the ideas of social Darwinism, which justified the unequal dis- tribution of wealth. Simultaneously, the ideas of the genetic inferiority of Africans and other peoples of color found a new base among scholars studying the human gene pool. The so-established hierarchy of human beings ensured that society cele- brated genocide as progress. This celebration has been reproduced at the cultural level, providing a material basis for the myths of white superiority. In the transition from the cold war, the ideological management of the work- ing peoples depends increasingly on psychological warfare to ensure loyalty and patriotism. Previously, in the era of the bipolar world (the fight against communism), the participation of the working peoples in war was obtained through major conces- sions such as redistribution of income, decent housing and education, trade union power, and other, similar aspects of the welfare state. During the period of the cold war, the extent to which the working peoples were willing and able to fight for the capitalist class was based on the fear of communism. In this way the “military- industrial-entertainment complex” was able to create the conditions for its own reproduction. However, at the present conjuncture of society’s deindustrialization, where the working peoples can no longer survive on one income in the household, military spending has continued to rise, financed by both the depression of the real wage and the intensification of international plunder. The majority of poor working people subsidize this military spending, and the appeals to patriotic sacrifice to fight terrorism have served as a cover for the new ide- ological coercion of the majority of the U.S. population. Politicians are seduced into this military infrastructure through the military contractors spreading the work of weapons manufacturing over forty-eight states. While the wage of the working peo- ple is depressed, the military has advanced plans to carry out urban warfare.11 Armaments Culture The United States ranks number one in arms sales and is at the apex of the global armaments culture. This culture is self-reinforcing and in many respects self-defeat- ing for the majority of humanity as the armaments culture connects the primary accumulators to the arms manufacturers, the media and image managers, military entrepreneurs, defense contractors, congressional representatives, policy entrepre- neurs, university funding, and humanitarian experts. Peace activists have made the androcentric, masculinist, violent, and sexist nature of the United States a prime tar- get for work in the transformation of the military, from Colombia to Yemen, to the Philippines, to the older bases in South Korea and Turkey. The cultural struggles that emanate from this confrontation touch the deepest sense of society’s future, and the war against terrorism brings out most clearly the divide in society. Space does not allow for a detailed exposition of the full integration of the media and the military establishment. However, many important studies exist on these questions, so it is not crucial here to spell out the historic links between the military and the entertainment industry.12 Billions of dollars are expended to simu- late situations that emotionally tie citizens to the ideology and practices of mili- tarism. There is now a group of U.S. capitalists acting as military consultants for the motion picture and television industries. Educational institutions from the univer- sities down to kindergartens are also being ensnared into this armaments culture.13 Psychological warfare and disinformation in the United States are linked to the ideologies of white superiority, heterosexism, and hegemonic masculinity. Con- cepts of masculinity and valor have deep roots in the armaments culture and build on the traditions of sex and conquest in society. Rape, violence, and plunder have been associated with the military for so long in “real life” and in the media that efforts are now mounted to create female warriors, undermining the gains of the women’s movement. With the rise of the militant women’s movement, the media has begun to portray women who have the same “masculine” proficiency, knowledge, and courage as their male counterparts in the defense of law and order and in the fight against white privilege. The culture of rape and misogyny lies deeply embedded in the ideology of the U.S. ruling class, and homophobia reinforces this culture. Fear of homosexuals and homosexuality run deep in the popular culture, and the military reproduces it with the assumption that homosexuals will undermine its fighting capabilities. Sex- ism, homophobia, and racial prejudices are given free rein in the military, yet the political leadership, through misinformation, presents the military as standing at the forefront of combating racism and sexism by the integration of women and people of color into its ranks. The renewed social contract between the rulers and the ruled along with the culture of violence reinforce the thrust for global hegemony and cushion the arma- ments manufacturers. This combination, along with the ideology of national security and the glorification of warfare, has been called the armaments culture. It is a system of beliefs, values, understandings, practices, and institutions that legitimizes the massive military budget of the United States, the trillion-dollar expenditure on nuclear and biological weapons, and the massive deployment of U.S. troops all around the globe for the preparation and launching of war. This culture serves a definite purpose within the United States by deflecting the fears, anger, and alienation of U.S. citizens and turning this anger and despair into a source of pride and patriotism (flag waving and displays of flags in all spaces). More significantly, the conservative militias reproducing racist ideas have undergone rehabilitation in the name and context of the patriotic fervor now enshrined in law with the Patriot Act and the establishment of the Office of Homeland Security. Since the end of the Vietnam War, the peace movement in the United States and scholars dedicated to a new mode of social organization have argued for the con- version of the military-industrial complex to ensure the availability of resources needed to clean up cities and toxic dumps.14 Organizations such as the National Commission for Economic Conversion and Disarmament have produced numerous writings on the revolution in technology and the opportunities offered by the new technologies for the demilitarized society. However, these organizations, though important, remain ineffective, as they do not link up with the mass mobilization forces organizing against the prison-industrial complex. The leading elements of the present ruling class are not unaware of the advanced plans for the conversion of the military-industrial complex. Yet in the face of the antiglobalization and peace move- ments, there are even more strident efforts to bring the Pentagon in line with the required changes for global domination and homeland security. For years the forward planners (called revolutionaries in the Pentagon) have argued that a current revolution in technology was outmoding the Pentagon’s old organization. In reality, there is the fear of the oppressed majority’s unity in struggle. The military planners’ arguments focus on the new “threats” resulting from the rev- olution in the technology of war and the nature of new weapons emanating from bio-engineering. They call for adaptation to changing conditions, pointing out that large, expensive weapons systems that took forever to produce represented as much of an enemy as hostile foreign powers. This revolution in military affairs emanates from the reality that the military is still organized around the Fordist model of the nineteenth-century factory and relies on forms of command, control, and communication out of step with the eco- nomic and technological changes under way in the biotech century. The military is organized around what military language calls “the second generation of warfare.”15 Given the rise of forces for freedom, the forces of repression need a new veil to oppress those struggling for self-determination. Terrorists and Liberators Whether in Guatemala, El Salvador, the Congo, Chile, Angola, Israel, or Nicaragua, the U.S. government and intelligence services have supported terrorist leaders and governments. When Osama bin Laden and Jonas Savimbi were regarded as allies fighting communism in Afghanistan and Angola, Nelson Mandela was considered a terrorist. To the present day, some members of the African National Congress are barred from entry into the United States on grounds of having been members of a terrorist organization.16 During the Vietnam War, the Bertrand Russell Tribunal noted that the U.S. Army constituted an institution of racial genocide.17 The U.S. government’s record of supporting terror all over the world explains its opposition to the establishment of an international criminal court. Vast and unchecked powers have now been accorded to an executive that has demonstrated flagrant disregard for the rule of law. This same executive has established a mechanism to operate secret military tribunals. The wholesale suspension of civil liberties, the silencing of political dissent, the assault on privacy, and the stripping of constitutional protection for legal immigrants, along with the inflated powers for the intelligence services have given the present U.S. gov- ernment far more power than the repressive machinery of Hitler’s Germany. Sur- veillance of all kinds is becoming routine in society. Because the United States is iso- lated internationally, the imperative for repression intensifies at home. As a result, the ruling class whips up insecurity and racial tensions, giving rise to the acceptance of racial profiling in society. The Patriot Act has reinforced the racist stereotypes of the conservative forces, while underlining black and other forms of racial profiling ongoing in the areas of eugenics and biological research. Racial Profiling in the Biotech Century Today, wealth and democracy are clashing at the same time that the United States is returning to its racist roots. From the time of the enslavement of the African pop- ulation, the wealth of the very rich has depended on dividing workers and mobiliz-ing exploited whites to persecute African Americans. Racial profiling during the period of slavery was entrenched in the fugitive slave laws, and the popular press mobilized ordinary whites to think of African Americans as inferior people. Yet from the seventeenth century onward, the African American population led the struggle for peace and economic transformation, with the civil rights period representing a major turning point. In that period, U.S. capitalists developed a conscious plan to recruit a section of the black middle class as their allies. This class has come into prominence with representatives such as Clarence Thomas, Colin Powell, Con- doleezza Rice, and Ward Connerly presented as success stories to the mass of poor blacks. The racial profiling and targeting of suspected terrorists in the United States brings the ideas and organization of yesterday’s racial oppression in line with new technologies and the contemporary eugenics movement. Eugenics had become pop- ularized in the United States in the wake of the reproduction of nineteenth-century biological determinism. Between 1880 and 1940, the eugenics movement repre- sented a dominant social movement. No less a person than the former president Theodore Roosevelt wrote on the duties of the “right kind of citizen of the right type” and the prevention of the “wrong people from breeding.”18 Positive eugenics has been described as selective breeding to improve the characteristics of an organism or species. Negative eugenics involved the systematic elimination of so-called undesirable biological traits. The sterilization laws orches- trated in the United States before 1945 were based on the need to ensure “positive breeding.” Only after the triumph of Nazi science did larger sections of the United States begin to grasp the full implications of eugenics theories. Yet the ideas sur- vived, thrived, and are now gaining new acceptance in U.S. society. The relationship between eugenics and biological warfare from the period of Hitler on is one of tremendous importance in the search for new ethical principles. These principles must challenge the ethics and values of competition and master- race theories. The application of genetic engineering technologies in order to render the system of modern warfare more efficient requires sustained experimentation in laboratories and over tightly controlled populations. Identification of potentially vio- lent children brought racial profiling to a new level, consistent with current practices in the educational system to “weed out” disruptive youngsters. The marriage between the priorities of the private educational corporations and the pharmaceu- tical companies in the area of genetic research and the interest of the Pentagon in chemical and biological warfare has created a new force, which fundamentally informs the nature of contemporary militarism and repression. With the emergence of DNA gene technology and the interest in designer weapons, tremendous dangers for humanity result from the research and development of new weapons of mass destruction.19 Opposing Biological Warfare Experiments The history of racism and eugenics in the United States surfaced in the form of the Tuskegee experiments from 1932 to 1972. No safeguards exist in society today to ensure that similar tests are not now underway. Peace activists, scientists, and all of those who want to retreat from the ideas of the master race are challenged by the ways in which policy-making bodies and research institutions are implicated in sup- porting research for the breeding and the preservation of a so-called master race. Numerous signs indicate the ways in which the corporate thrust of university work compromises the scientific community. Peace researchers and activists will have to begin to develop a philosophical understanding of the present “weeding” process of Western medicine. The callous responses of the leading industrial societies to the AIDS pandemic in Africa reinforce the belief among many African Americans that new viruses such as AIDS and Ebola were engineered in the laboratory. Moreover, the news of the efforts of Wouter Basson to weaponize AIDS during the era of apartheid in South Africa lend credence to those who believe that AIDS emanated from biological warfare experiments. The worldwide struggle to find a cure for AIDS is a central aspect of the struggle for world peace. Genetic engineering in the pres- ent period serves as the perfect vehicle for extending the pseudoscience of the Enlightenment and the hierarchy of races implicit in the globalization of apartheid. The military applications of genetic engineering tools must grip the attention of those seeking peace as the lessons of earlier periods of biological warfare and eugenic thinking become more available in the public domain. The issues of cloning and stem cell research reveal the need for an extension of the concept of democracy to cover public control over scientific research.20 Racial profiling in the United States is being taken to a completely new stage in the scientific community as the possibil- ity of genetic discrimination increases.21 Toward a Culture of Peace In this analysis of the contemporary manifestations of the catastrophe of capitalism and the main contradictions of the present forms of accumulation, I have highlighted the ways in which the armaments culture reproduces the conditions for capitalist plunder. The emphasis on changes in the knowledge economy and the transforma- tions in the era of hydrogen fuel cell technology is meant to bring to light the imper- atives of new forms of domination. The rules of the World Trade Organization in relation to the patenting of life forms represent a new kind of total domination. The relationship between German fascism and militarism demonstrates how, in the absence of a major peace movement dedicated to transforming society, the impetus toward capital accumulation on a world scale can carry a society to the most destructive paths.22 When the war in Vietnam was brought into the living rooms of U.S. citizens, many youths refused to take on the imperial role the war demanded of them. The antiwar movement strengthened the nascent peace movement, the latter barely audible during McCarthyism. The antiwar, black liberation, environmental justice, gay and lesbian, peace, and women’s movements created a new base of pol- itics in the United States. In order to achieve a new way forward, the movements had to build new bases of social power. Martin Luther King Jr. had called for a revolution of values in order to bring jus- tice and fairness to the U.S. political system. For a short period of time, the peace and black liberation movements managed to drive a wedge into the ranks of the U.S. ruling class, creating sharp divisions therein. As a result, sections of the capitalist class did not believe in the necessity of repression in dealing with the antiwar movement. Long-term planners believed that the society was robust enough ultimately to co-opt the protesters. Slowly, it became clearer that the struggle for peace could not be linear and based on opposition to military spending, but had to be linked to the transformation of the social system. This reality underscored the fact that the building of peace con- stituted a process and not an event associated with a single-issue campaign, such as ending U.S. military interventions in Central America, the war against Iraq, or the closing of the School of the Americas. Each of the antiwar campaigns built on the legacies of a larger movement. The consolidation of the peace movement coincided with the intensification of militarism and military culture, with images of warfare promoted in the War on Drugs, the War on Poverty, the War on Crime, and the var- ious wars against youth. The draconian laws now implemented under the Patriot Act have energized the social forces dedicated to peace. The antiglobalization campaign and the peace campaign merged with the reparations movement of African descendants and indigenous peoples at the third UN World Conference against Racism. It was not by chance that the U.S. government opposed the declarations of the meeting and sought in every way to cut off the U.S. population from the international struggles repre- sented there. Ultimately, the repressive thrust of the present U.S. government was also directed against other sections of capital that did not support its goals. The strengthened reparations movement in the United States creates a new space for the interrogation of past crimes and for a thorough rethinking of the whole basis for the social organization of society. This movement currently divides over the exact meaning of reparations—monetary compensation or a campaign for the full healing from past crimes. Valuing Human Life and the Goals of Transformation for Peace This reflection has been premised on the challenge of how those forces dedicated to peace can accelerate the transformation of society and develop human potential for self-emancipation from all forms of bondage and restrictions—mental, racial, economic, gender-based. From the outset, it must be stated that the pursuit of peace and the search for transformation cannot remain linear, but must link up with a mul- tifaceted process interconnected with the renewal of the human spirit. The multi- faceted transformation for peace involves inter alia (a) material transformations, the reorganization of the priorities of the economy and redistribution of wealth in soci- ety; (b) the transformation of gender relations, a break from the privileging of maleness, chauvinism, and homophobia; (c) political transformation involving self- emancipation, the development of democratic institutions, and freedom from all oppression and repression; (d) military transformation, a retreat from the history of racial genocide and imperial domination, and the establishment of peoples’ security; and (e) cultural transformation, involving a new culture based on unleashing the cre- ative potential of the people and sharpening the appetite of the youth for self- discovery. It is in the process of cultural transformation, in the process of building an alternative culture of peace, that a sustained assault on the armaments culture will take place.23 Conclusion In 1999 in The Hague, the very same venue where the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom congregated in 1915, peace activists from all over the world met to chart a new course for peace. In this meeting, peace in one country was explicitly tied to world peace. This linkage constituted a major step forward because it meant the recognition of the fact that peace was incompatible with genocide. The declaration of the meeting in The Hague created new rallying calls for the peace movement in the twenty-first century. The Hague Appeal for Peace 1999 spelled out ten fundamental principles for a just world order: 1. Every government should adopt a resolution prohibiting the government from going to war. 2. All states should unconditionally accept the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court of Justice. 3. Every government should ratify the International Criminal Court and implement the Mine Ban Treaty. 4. All states should integrate the New Diplomacy—the partnership of governments, international organizations, and civil society. 5. The world cannot ignore humanitarian crises, but every creative diplomatic means possible must be exhausted before resorting to force under UN authority. 6. Negotiations for a Convention Eliminating Nuclear Weapons should begin immediately. 7. The trade in small arms should be severely restricted. 8. Economic rights must be taken as seriously as civil rights. 9. Peace education should be compulsory in every school. 10. The plan for the Global Action to Prevent War should become the basis for a peaceful world order. The goals of the international peace movement represent a major step away from the doublespeak of the capitalists presently seeking to manipulate the concepts of peace to reinforce repression. The major question before the citizens of the United States, and indeed before humanity, is the issue of the form of human orga- nization necessary to achieve the dignity of all human beings. This question inte- grally relates to what form of human organization can best use the planet’s resources for the reproduction of the human species, while cleaning up the destruction of the past. This would break with the past “ideal” of achieving peace within the context of a racist and capitalist society. However, before that point is reached, all of the horrors of the present investment in militarism will have to be revealed. Only then will the whole population awaken to the fact that another world must be possible

3/14/19

MA K - Public Health

Tournament: TFA State | Round: 1 | Opponent: Burleson Centennial HM | Judge: Isaac ChaoPublic health movement is rooted in neoimperialism.Holley, 2017 https://dickey.dartmouth.edu/news-events/racism-thwarts-global-public-health, April 16, 2017 | The Valley News, By EmmaJean Holley, Valley New Staff WriterHanover — Global health leaders grappled with the irony of gathering at Dartmouth College to discuss the urgent situations faced by some of the poorest populations in the world.How, attendees of the Leila and Melville Straus 1960 Family Symposium asked, could health care providers surmount barriers of privilege and racism by learning from the errors of a global health regime that went hand-in-hand with imperialism? The day-long event on Wednesday, titled “Global Health in an Era of De-Globalization,” offered no easy answers.In fact, the roots of the global health movement are inextricably linked to imperialism itself, said Nils Daulaire, a distinguished visiting scholar in global health at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and senior fellow at the Harvard Global Health Institute who participated in one of the symposium’s panel discussions.“It was the thought that we can fix them by making them more like us. In these cases, we are sadly reminded of the use of biological warfare as a means of essentially clearing the land,” he said, adding that these initiatives were geared less toward ensuring the good health of indigenous populations and more toward streamlining the empire’s systematic extraction of resources from the land and its people.Daulaire, who previously led the Upper Valley-based Global Health Council and served as an assistant secretary for global affairs at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services during the Obama administration, said the era of imperialism in global health peaked along with the British empire in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.But the effects of imperialism are not confined to its heyday, said Richard Horton, editor-in-chief of the British medical journal The Lancet.“Imperialism isn’t over. It isn’t some relic of the past. It’s just been re-invented in different forms,” he said, adding that giving the phenomenon a name — “neo-imperialism” — is one way for leaders to hold themselves accountable for continuing to operate under paternalistic frameworks of care.Horton delivered the keynote speech later that day, on “Planetary Health: Perils and Possibilities for Human Civilization.”The consequences of neo-imperialism in global health are prevalent even in the Arctic region, where some of the wealthiest countries still struggle to provide adequate care to its indigenous, largely low-income communities, said Susan Chatwood, executive and scientific director of the Institute for Circumpolar Health Research.“There is tremendous loss of culture, loss of livelihood, loss of traditional diet and sources of nutrition — and, as a result, we’ve seen an explosion in rates of substance abuse, suicide and non-communicable disease,” such as heart disease, Chatwood said.Michelle Morse, the founding co-director of the nonprofit organization EqualHealth, said she also saw this in her work with cholera patients in Haiti. The cholera epidemic originated with the arrival of United Nations troops from Nepal, who came to Haiti to help restore political stability after President Jean-Bertrand Aristide was deposed in 2004. Though Morse commended the good intent of the U.N. workers, she said that the fact that they were asymptomatic carriers of cholera resulted in the loss of some 10,000 Haitian lives in the eight years she spent working there.In those eight years, she said, not once was the specter of racism addressed — something she said she would like to see changed in future generations of global health leaders.“So much of what you see in global health initiatives is people in the U.S., who are not people of color, going to places where there are people of color, and not bringing that structural analysis of why they need to be there in the first place, or thinking about their own prejudices,” she said. “Not to say that they are racists — just that racism is built into all of our structures in America, because that is our history.”This racism can often manifest itself toward populations that are more vulnerable to transmittable disease, said Martin Cetron, director of global migration and quarantine at the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, citing the Ebola and Zika epidemics.

Turns case and outweighs:a) Propagate same racist mentality - lack of structural analysis of different factors within each country destroys ability to engage and create positive changea. Links: use the CDC as your solvency advocate, the UN -large orgnaizations b) Historical legacy of movement outweighs specific instances of public health being good- structural role of biology in policymaking being used to clear the land and extract resources OW on probabilityAlternative “rehabilitation” is code for indefinite torture, shock and isolation – it’s violent normalization Ben-Moshe, 2011 Critical Sociology, http://crs.sagepub.com/, Disabling Incarceration: Connecting Disability to Divergent Confinements in the USA, Liat Ben-Moshe, Crit Sociol published online 20 December 2011 DOI: 10.1177/0896920511430864, The online version of this article can be found at: http://crs.sagepub.com/content/early/2011/12/19/0896920511430864, Published by: http://www.sagepublications.com, Disabling Incarceration: Connecting Disability to Divergent Confinements in the USA, Liat Ben-Moshe, University of Illinois at Chicago, USA

This article suggests the merits of conceptualizing incarceration as including institutionalization in a wide variety of enclosed settings, including prisons, jails, institutions for the intellectually disabled, treatment centers, and psychiatric hospitals. Such formulations conceptualize incarceration as a continuum and a multi-faceted phenomenon. This article will highlight the importance of moving beyond analogies between criminalization, institutionalization and psychiatrization to discuss the intersection of these phenomena, by highlighting several social science perspectives that have integrated these spheres already; taking up an analysis of the political economy of incarceration; and re-examining the reality of prisoners with disabilities in the growing prison machine. Lastly, I propose a re-examination of the forces of trans-incarceration, the move from one carceral edifice such as a psychiatric hospital to another such as a jail. I will demonstrate the ways in which engaging in such intersectional analysis changes the lens from which disability and incarceration are conceptualized and analyzed. Keywords disability, intersectionality, mental health, political economy, prisons, critical theory Introduction There has been much recent interest among social scientists in the issue of ‘mass incarceration’ (see for instance Garland, 2001; Gilmore, 2006; Gottschalk, 2006; Pager, 2009; Sim, 2009; Wacquant, 2009; Western, 2006). For the most part, this surge in scholarship, analysis and calls for reform does not include analysis of disability and ableism. One area of sociological analysis that seems to encompass incarceration and disability is in accounts that depict imprisonment of those with psychiatric and developmental disabilities as related to a perceived failure of the policy of deinstitutionalization (see Crissey and Rosen, 1986; Dear and Wolch, 1987; Isaac and Armat, 1990; Johnson, 1990; Torrey, 1996; Wacquant, 2009), which will be discussed and cri- tiqued later in relation to forces of trans-incarceration. Another exception to this lacuna is the work of Bernard Harcourt (2006, 2011), which connects research on hospitalization in psychiat- ric hospitals to research on the growth of the prison machine in the USA.On the other hand, the vast literature in the growing field of disability studies has paid very little attention to the imprisonment of people with disabilities, especially in North America. One notable exception is work on institutionalization and hospitalization of people with a variety of impairments, written from sociological, historical and phenomenological perspectives (for example Ferguson, 1994; Johnson, 1998; Reaume, 2000). However, very little attention has been given to other forms of incarceration in relation to disability – especially to the increased reliance of the state on prisons and jails, and there is a lack of connection between disability studies litera- ture and the various sociological analyses of the prison-industrial complex, mentioned above.Although disability studies is a diverse and interdisciplinary field, it seems that it often has a sociological orientation interested in the lived experiences of those with disabilities. Yet there is little research about the lived experience of those incarcerated in a variety of settings including prisons and jails, and analysis of the forces of imprisonment from a disability perspective. Sociology, at least in one of its formulations, should be concerned with finding the people where they are located and explaining their circumstances in ways that they might not be able to see from their location, or garnering people’s lived knowledge about their location, which may be unfamiliar to outsiders. Both of these interpretations could be connected back to C. Wright Mills’s formula- tion of the sociological imagination as the ability and the desire to connect one’s ‘personal trouble’ to ‘public issues’ (Mills, 1959). If sociology and disability studies are indeed concerned with both the lived experience of disabled people and the ‘matrix of domination’ (Collins, 2000) that sustain ableism, then I propose they need to pay attention to processes of incarceration and imprisonment as major ‘public issues’ taking place within the global North and South (albeit in different ways). I thus call for a tighter connection between the sociology of disability, or the study of the ontology and phenomenological experiences of disabled people and analysis of ableism, and the critical sociological study of incarceration.This article will offer several connecting points through which disability and incarceration could be studied. The first is a brief overview of several social science perspectives that have integrated these spheres already. The second takes up an analysis of the political economy of incarceration, encompassing prisons and jails but also institutions and nursing homes. The third connecting point lies in the intersection of incarceration and disability – the reality of prisoners with disabilities in the growing prison machine, especially in North America. Lastly, I propose a re-examination of the forces of trans-incarceration, or the move from one carceral edifice such as a psychiatric hospital to another such as a jail. This analysis will pave the way to a broader and deeper understanding of what incarceration entails, in its varied forms. What underpins all these arguments is the idea that incarceration should be perceived as a continuum, ranging from prisons and jails to institutions for the intellectually disabled,1 and psychiatric hospitals. I therefore advocate an interpretation of incarceration that yields an analysis which is both nuanced and inter- sectional from its outset.Broadening the Scope of IncarcerationThe need to combine the discussion on current levels of imprisonment with discussion and data about institutionalization, hospitalization and disablement is imperative for practical, empirical and theoretical reasons. The most pressing is the need to expand on notions of what comes to be classified as ‘incarceration’. This article suggests the merits of conceptualizing incarceration as including institutionalization in a wide variety of enclosed settings, including prisons, jails, detention centers, institutions for the intellectually disabled, treatment centers, and psychiatric hospitals. Such formulations conceptualize incarceration as a continuum and a multi-faceted phenomenon. This analysis is especially pressing because of the immense growth of the prison machine in the USA.For the first time in US history, in 2008, more than one in 100 American adults was behind bars. In 2009 the adult incarcerated population in prisons and jails in the USA had reached 2,284,900 according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS, 2010). The USA incarcerates a greater share of its population, 737 per 100,000 residents, than any other country on the planet (Pew Center, 2008). Another whopping 5,018,900 people are under ‘community corrections,’ which include parole and probation (BJS, 2010). Race, gender and disability play a significant role in incarceration rates. In 2006, Caucasians/whites were imprisoned at a rate of 409 per 100,000 residents; Latinos at 1038 per 100,000 and African-Americans at 2468 per 100,000. The rate for women was 134 per 100,000 residents and for men, 1384 per 100,000. In 2005 more than half of all prison and jail inmates were reported as having a mental health problem. Nearly a quarter of both state prisoners and jail inmates who had a mental health problem, compared to a fifth of those without, had served three or more prior incarcerations (Prison Policy Initiative, 2008). The number of carceral edifices in the USA had grown as well. From 2000 to 2005, the number of state and federal correctional facilities increased by 9 percent, from 1668 to 1821 (BJS, 2008).In contrast to the constant expansion of prisons, deinstitutionalization and institution closure have been a major policy trend in most US states in the past few decades. Deinstitutionalization of people who were labeled as ‘mentally ill’ began in the 1950s. The deinstitutionalization in the field of ‘mental retardation’ gained prominence in the 1970s, although this of course varied by state. The population of people with intellectual disabilities living in large public institutions peaked at 194,650 in 1967. By 2004, this number had declined to 41,653 (Prouty et al., 2005). The trend in deinstitutionalization for people with intellectual disabilities was accompanied by institutional closures across most states. By 2009, the District of Columbia, Alaska, Hawaii, Maine, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Rhode Island, Vermont, and West Virginia had closed all of their public institutions for people with developmental disabilities (Lakin et al., 2010). In con- trast, 13 states have not closed any such public institutions (Braddock, 2002).An accompanying shift occurred in the field of mental health with the establishment of the community mental health centers in the 1960s and the closure of large state mental hospitals in most major cities. In 1955, the state mental health population was 559,000, nearly as large on a per capita basis as the prison population today. By 2000, it had fallen to below 100,000, a drop of more than 90 percent (Gottschalk, 2010; Harcourt, 2011). Deinstitutionalization in the field of developmental disabilities occurred about 12 years after the deinstitutionalization of public mental hospitals, and the rate of reduction of use of these facilities was also significantly different between the two processes. In the first 10 years of deinstitutionalization for traditional institutions for those labeled as ‘mentally retarded’, the institutionalized population was reduced by 30 percent and then averaged about 11 percent a year during the 1970s. At its height, between 1955 and 1965, the deinstitutionalization in psychiatric hospitals reduced the populations by 15 percent only (Lerman, 1985).Over the years, some of the figures given for deinstitutionalization of public institutions have been misleading, as significant proportions of people were transferred to other types of institutions including nursing homes. In 2009, for instance, 12,475 people with developmental disabilities lived in state operated community residential settings with 15 or fewer residents. In addition, between 1977 and 2009, the total number of residential settings in which people with developmen- tal disabilities received residential services grew from 11,008 to an estimated 173,042, an increase of 1500 percent (Lakin et al., 2010). Because most of these newer settings are much smaller than the massive institutions of previous decades, they are not typically counted as ‘institutional’ placements, but due to their daily routines and other aspects of life in these settings, many people with disabilities, family members, and advocates consider them to be mini-institutions within the community (Center on Human Policy, 2004).From this critical intersection, it may not be surprising to also learn that physically, many institutions for those labeled as psychiatrically or developmentally disabled that closed down during the 1980s actually re-opened a few years later as prisons. Alabama turned three-quarters of its closed institutions (which closed in 2003) into correctional facilities (the fourth quarter’s use is undetermined). Illinois closed seven institutions, two of which became correctional facili- ties and a third a women’s prison. New York State had the absolute largest number of institutions in the USA, seventeen of which closed between 1970 and 2010. Most of them were left as is, with future usage undetermined, but at least two became correctional facilities (Braddock et al., 2008). These figures, although not comprehensive by any means, serve to highlight the cyclical nature of social control and the persistent nature of incarceration as a strategy to categorize and keep out ‘undesirable’ populations.I want to be clear here, that proposing a more thoroughly ‘intersectional’ history is distinct from proposing that ableism and racism, or asylums and prisons, are the same. It is the similarities and the distinctions that are important to attend to, in terms of rationalizations, in terms of practices associated with them, and also in terms of the effects on the people who are incarcerated in diverse sites of confinement. For example, the criminal justice system seems to offer certain protections to the accused and the prisoner, such as due process during the trial and sentencing procedures, a sentence of a specified duration. However, medical institutions allow the compulsory admittance of patients against their will based only on a medical diagnosis, an indefinite time of commitment, and ‘treatments’ that are both painful and harmful, such as extended periods of isolation, physical restraints, and electric shock ‘therapy’. In addition, the government and the public assume medical ‘treatment’ is in the best interests of both the patient and society, and great autonomy is given to physicians to determine the best course of treatment (Conrad and Schneider, 1992; Goffman, 1961; Snyder and Mitchell, 2006). Incarceration in prisons, however, seems to be operating more under the discourses of punishment and retribution, rather than rehabilitation. This framework has its own lethal effects on the lives of those incarcerated and formerly incarcerated, but it does not nec- essarily operate under the same processes as medicalized settings, although both settings have many similarities (Chapman et al., forthcoming).Connecting Institutionalization and Imprisonment in the Social SciencesOn a theoretical level, the imperative to understand incarceration through both the prism of the prison but also that of the institution, as this article suggests, is crucial to understanding the underlying relations that legitimate confinement in a variety of settings. Such analysis also under- scores the relation between penal and medical notions of danger, as they relate to both criminal- ization and medicalization and labeling. Historically, the connection between imprisonment and definitions of ‘abnormality’ seems to have arisen out of a new configuration of notions of danger. From the 19th century the webs of the medical and the judicial start to intertwine with the rise of a hybrid discourse, according to Foucault (2003). Its hybridity lies not just in the sense of amalgamation of several discourses (legal, medical) but also in the creation of a new power/ knowledge structure in which ‘doctors laying claim to judicial power and judges laying claim to medical power’ (2003: 39) lay down an intertwined system of surveillance, which includes psy- chiatric progress reports on the incarcerated, examination in court of the accused, and surveil- lance of ‘at risk’ groups. According to Foucault (2003), this medico-judicial discourse does not originate from medicine or law or in between, but from another external discourse – that of abnormality. The power of normalization is cloaked by medical notions of illness and legal notions of recidivism. The history of treatment and categorization of those labeled as feeble- minded, and later mentally retarded, is also paved with cobblestones of notions of social danger, as prominent eugenicists tried to ‘scientifically’ establish that those whom they characterized as feebleminded had a tendency to commit violent crimes. In the late 19th century, as the eugenics movement gained momentum, it was declared that all feebleminded people were potential criminals (Rafter, 1997; Trent, 1995).Spaces of confinement themselves, such as psychiatric hospitals, poorhouses, prisons and insti- tutions for those labeled as ‘mentally retarded’, could also be perceived as operating on similar logic, from a variety of perspectives. Foucault analyzes their discursive formations and effects as docile making and producing techniques of governance and social control (1995). The ‘remarkable continuity of confinement’ (Harcourt, 2006) is also discussed as part of a revisionist social history of places of confinement, offered by Rothman (1971), Grob (1972, 1983), Scull (1979, 1989) and Foucault (1965, 1987, 1995) and amended by feminist historians and criminologists such as Rafter (2004) and Kurshan (1996). The revisionist narrative marked a shift from perspectives that saw asylums and prisons as reforming and benevolent, to more nuanced accounts that critiqued both the consequences and intentions of reform efforts that ended in mass incarceration. Interestingly, this neo-historiography of the institution and prison was written, and battled, by historians and other intellectuals at a time when these institutions started to lose their legitimacy. Most of these accounts were produced in the 1960s and 1970s when larger exposes, lawsuits, novels, movies and ethnog- raphies came out to reveal the decrepit conditions of asylums, hospitals and prisons. These included Erving Goffman’s Asylums (1961), the novel made into a Hollywood film One flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest (Kesey, 1962), Burton Blatt’s exposé Christmas in Purgatory (Blatt and Kaplan, 1974), the riots in Attica prison, and lawsuits on behalf of prisoners and inmates in state institu- tions. Therefore, the debates over the reasons and usefulness of asylums in the past should be read as directly tied to debates over decarceration and re-institutionalization at present. The premise that all these writings share is an understanding of incarceration as a continuum and not an isolated phenomenon that can be understood by engaging with only one locale.Goffman’s analysis became a popularized sociological account that analyzed all such edifices as ‘total institutions,’ in which the incarcerated populations are subjected to stripping of their identities and processes of dehumanization (Goffman, 1961). In addition, the citizenship and personhood of those incarcerated is questioned when living in such institutions. This can be done in the form of taking away or denying voting rights, as is the case for felons and many people with labels of intellectual disabilities, or for women, denying reproductive rights when living in pris- ons and nursing homes. These populations were also targets of medical experiments in institu- tions and prisons. Such connections, which stress the similarities of total institutions beg us also to emphasize the importance of moving away from analogies (institutions are like prisons for example) into thinking more intersectionally about their interrelated nature.

Turns the aff and outweighs- forms of violence propagated via alternative modes of therapy and biopolitical control are secretive and more unaccountable than the squo - OW on reversibility, cycles of psychological violence affect victim permanently and on magnitude- thousands of people affected by the system

Reject the political of the realm of public health and pharma control – it’s part of the hyperbolic war on terror that treats life itself as a threat to justify endless violenceThacker, 5 – Assistant Professor in the School of Literature, Communication, and Culture at the Georgia Institute of Technology(Eugene, “Nomos, Nosos and Bios”, Culture Machine, http://culturemachine.tees.ac.uk/Cmach/Backissues/j007/Articles/thacker.htm)

Nevertheless, the ongoing development (and funding) of various surveillance initiatives illustrates the degree to which the broad concept of biodefense has come to include both bioterrorism and epidemics in a unique zone of indistinction. This implosion has been made explicit in the way that the U.S. government speaks of biodefense. Consider President Bush’s remarks in his 2001 State of the Union address: ‘Disease has long been the deadliest enemy of mankind … . We have fought the causes and consequences of disease throughout history and must continue to do so with every available means. All civilized nations reject as intolerable the use of disease and biological weapons as instruments of war and terror’ (U.S. White House, 2002). At a press conference announcing the Biosurveillance Project, HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson noted that ‘these new investments will not only better prepare our nation for, and protect us from, a bioterrorism attack, they will also better prepare us for any public health emergency. In fact, we’ve already seen our investments pay off last year in CDC’s leadership in fighting the SARS outbreak, and a coordinated public health response to the West Nile Virus’ (U.S. DHS, 2004).No one will deny the real threats posed by emerging infectious disease, and the limited but demonstrated effectiveness of bioterrorism; that is, obviously, not what is at issue here. What is at stake is the manner in which U.S. biodefense policy has created an atmosphere in which it is impossible to distinguish national security from public health, war from medicine, terror from biological ‘life.’ The inordinate amount of funding and emphasis given to biodefense nearly suggests that public health can only be improved through the condition of permanent exception that is war, that the health of the population can only be improved by continually targeting the population as biologically vulnerable. In the case of U.S. biodefense policy, the perspective of necrology shows us that the current biopolitical state of emergency is maintained by constantly producing the virtual dissolution of the body politic. Here, security, defense, and medicine fold in to a single problem: how to identify any and all threats to the ‘life’ of the population, such that prevention and preemption will coincide perfectly. The threat to the body politic is also the threat to the collective body natural, and thus the threat to ‘life itself’ is also ‘life itself’; the threat to the medico-political conception of the state is, at some basic level, biology. The very concept of biological warfare implies this – biology is the weapon, the means, and the target all at once. U.S. biodefense policy is actually a philosophical, even existential statement: that, be it an intentional bioterrorist attack or an unintentional epidemic, the common threat to the population is ‘life itself.’ By definition, this undeclared ‘war on biology’ is without end, precisely because ‘life itself’ is constantly threatened with its own end.In a sense, however, this biopolitical situation is to be found wherever a governmentality of public health confronts a medical emergency that is also a perceived political emergency (war, famine, epidemic, natural disaster). Indeed, the historical examples Foucault gives of biopolitics all suggest that public health always develops in a state of exception. The situation of U.S. biodefense today is, in this sense, no different. What is unique about the situation today is that the way in which that state of exception is governed. Today, over and above the networks of infection and transportation that make epidemics and bioterrorism possible, we are witnessing a network of communication and information that is deployed as a countermeasure. The CDC’s NEDSS combats West Nile virus, the WHO’s network combats SARS. Networks fighting networks. Today, it is information or code that mediates between war and biology. Computer databases at hospitals, information networks transmitting real-time health data, protocols surrounding the handling of medical data in relation to insurance companies, FDA approval of new vaccines for anthrax and other bioweapons, investment in pharmaceutical RandD, and the use of high-tech diagnostics technologies (pharmacogenomics, DNA microarrays), will all be used in this biopolitics.We can move, then, from biology to necrology. In doing so, we point to the complicated layers of analogy, metaphor, and artifact in the U.S. biodefense ontology. Disease accounts for social ills, but in the form of epidemics it is a social ill. War provides the interpretive lens through which to metaphorize medicine, as well as to literalize the technology of biological weapons and bioterrorism. War and disease impact each other, and infect each other, in ways that are at once metaphorical, material, and artifactual. In this regard, a necrological perspective is worth thinking about as the boundary between bioterror and epidemic is blurred, for it raises the key issue of how a notion of ‘life itself’ is mobilized to guarantee sovereignty in the age of biopolitics.Colonialist biopolitical control empirically led to awful impacts like genocide, slavery that outweigh on scope and magnitude - look at US biopolitical control over natives when they arrived- decimated much of the population

Alternative is to reject the affirmative’s starting point through a perspective that transcends methodological nationalism – this is key to challenging myth of western biopolitical superiority in public health and providing agency to those struggling against colonial fantasies. Recognize the role of colonialism within public health as the starting pointLang, 1: “Public health and colonialism: a new or old problem?” Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health Centre for Food Policy, Wolfson Institute of Health Sciences, Thames Valley University, 32–38 Uxbridge Road, Ealing, London W5 2BS, United KingdomIn this context, the use of the term “colonialism” should be welcomed back into debate about public health. Although it grates and is probably a little crude, it points to a core truth about the social determinants of health. The forces that systematically mould and influence health are humanly factored, socially influenced and unequal. This is not to deny the immense strides in understanding about genetic or other biophysical mechanisms. On the contrary, the more such pathways are understood, the more important it is to appreciate the social factors that can make or manage them. The challenge laid down by the New Public Health—which is in fact rather old now (first referenced in 1911!)—is that policy and human actions can make a considerable difference to health outcomes. This being the case, the grand sweep of historical forces once again become pertinent. We are so easily focused on minutiae in our professional and everyday lives that we cannot see the wood for the trees, to use that English phrase. Like “class”, the word “colonialism” resonates with meanings from an older social order, a period and centuries marked by great political tussles in which huge historical dynamics could be identified. The proponents of post-modernity sometime imply that these older words described a social reality that no longer exists.6 Colonialism, class, power, state intervention, etc, derive, they argue, from an obsolete lexicon. Differences among people are reduced to individual factors, chance or genetics. History itself, siren voices argue, has stopped, with the triumph of the West.7 Who could disagree that we live through a period of astonishing change? Yet the power of the information age—with its surfeit of data—enables us now to see the post-modern Emperor for what it is.8Class, colonialism, social tension not only never went; they merely changed their clothes. The amazing gap between rich and poor within and between societies is well documented. There are 1.2 billion people living on US$1 per day.9 Meanwhile, the top 200 billionaires doubled their wealth in 1994–98 and just three of their number have more wealth than the combined GNP of all least developed countries, a total of 600 million people.10 Michael Jordan, a US athlete, was paid US$20 million for endorsing Nike trainers, more than the entire workforce was paid for making them.11 His wealth, their health? Should we be surprised that after huge gains in life expectancy in the 1970s, it is now slipping? Or that 800 million children globally are under-nourished or that 2 billion people exhibit effects of poor diet?12 Our era is not neo-colonial; it is more neo-mediaeval. A new global class structure has quietly unfolded in which epidemiologists and all social researchers need to look beyond national or regional boundaries to see similarities of experience. The rich of Mumbai, India and Manchester, England may have more in common with each other than their neighbouring poor and the same may be true for the poor. If epidemiology is to grasp this reality as an explanatory tool, it must expand both its spatial units and conceptual boundaries, in the way it is already being asked to do in relation to the borders of environmental and human health.13 Social scientists studying food have for decades been pointing to gaps between developed and developing worlds. It is now time to look within as well as between. New comparative partnerships are the key to methodologies. Health realities need to be explored on four levels (local, national, regional and global) and new professional intersectoral collaboration are needed. This is easy to write, but hard to do. Academic discourse has been put onto a treadmill of contracts and business. For 20 years, since a neo-liberal orthodoxy triumphed in Western politics and economic management,14 dissident voices have been hushed. The intellectual space for criticism diminished, in part because of funding, work schedules, etc, and in part because of specialisation and exhaustion. But civil society, in particular Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs), is leading the way in rolling back this shroud. At Seattle, in December 1999, an unforeseen alliance of public interest groups came together to protest at the new order. Having failed to get even token reforms into the 1994 Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), they were left only with the right to protest. They brought to a halt the latest round of what Watkins memorably called “fixing the rules”.15 Suddenly, space to debate is emerging. While the “realists” argued that globalisation cannot be stopped, the Seattle movements remind us that social reality is made not given. All who work to promote public health need to seize this chance and debate core ideas and themes. We need to be unashamedly partisan in promoting public, not just individual, health and to rediscover our roots in social medicine. We need to engage with thorny governance issues, siding with the health democrats over the control tendency. Our role is to promote policy integration over fragmentation, and to provide an evidence base for just and equitable public policy and practice. This can only be done by recognising not disguising the raw inequalities of power that were unfolded by the neo-liberal project geo-spatially, in both North and South, East and West.

Reject the SQ capitalist, militarized culture of American violence devalues life based upon a racist, heteronormative order in which pharmaceutical companies work with the military industrial complex to ensure endless war and destruction – the ROB is to endorse the debater who begins from a starting point of ethics that reject biopolitical violence – international solidarity movements proveCampbell, 2003 http://muse.jhu.edu.libproxy.wustl.edu/journals/radical_history_review/v085/85.1campbell.pdf, Radical History Review, Issue 85, Winter 2003, pp. 24-36 (Article), http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/rhr/summary/v085/85.1campbell.html, Beyond Militarism and Terrorism in the Biotech Century: Toward a Culture of Peace and Transformation, Horace CampbellThis analysis examines the conditions for moving beyond the devaluation of human lives in order to achieve radical transformations creating new forms of com- munity and association able to unleash the creativity of the human spirit. This will be necessary for the revitalization of society away from militarism and the worship of profit. The present global war on terrorism is having a fundamental impact on world politics, and it is within this period of major political, economic, military, and social struggles that my discussion seeks to participate in the support of peace and healing. The history of racial genocide and crimes against humanity has been recounted in so many places that an international constituency has formed, deter- mined to push for peace and international justice. This constituency came together in the historic World Conference against Racism (WCAR) in Durban, South Africa, in September 2001. The forces against globalization, which had demonstrated their presence in Seattle, Nice, Gotenbourg, Genoa, Porto Alegre, and Durban, had exposed the fact that there was a positive force mobilized for peace. The WCAR was of seminal importance in the understanding that there was a renewed sense of soli- darity from the forces fighting for a culture of peace. There was a tacit agreement that the rebuilding of international solidarity constituted one of the essential condi- tions for the establishment of a world system more just than the one currently dom- inated by the United States. One component of the new peace movement is the demand for reparations. Militarism and the U.S. Capitalist System The major task of those who reject all forms of terrorism is to oppose the spread of U.S. military bases, military clients, intense military spending, and celebration of war at a time when the economic conditions of the vast majority of the population have worsened. Left unchallenged, military spending in the United States will exceed $2 trillion in the next four years. Despite the media’s misinformation, which insists on a recovering economy, the majority of low-income people have great difficulty meet- ing their basic needs, lack adequate health care, and do not have access to relevant education. No less a person than president and former general Dwight Eisenhower warned how weapons manufacturers were shaping the domestic, foreign, and diplo- matic policies of the United States. He was the first to use the formulation military- industrial complex.5 Since Eisenhower’s conjuncture, this complex has expanded into the communication and information arenas. Militarism has been defined as “the pervasiveness in society of symbols, val- ues and discourses validating military power, and preparation for war.”6 Usually North American scholars point to Third World countries with authoritarian leaders as examples of militaristic societies. These manifestations of militarism represent one brand, but the militarism of the imperial state is even more formidable than the powers of Third World dictators. Karl Liebknecht, the German revolutionary, rec- ognized the long history of warfare in all modes of production, but he also under- stood the specific relationship between “warfare and capitalism.”7 Scholars still study the impact of German militarism and the interconnections between warfare, eugen- ics, and fascism to grasp the ways in which capitalist competition and greed fueled war, imperial expansion, and genocide.8 The same glorification of war has now emerged in American culture, the same capitalist competition and the same efforts to control the known and potential resources of the planet. In a slow and pedantic manner, the European Union has sought to deepen the capitalist competition by creating a single currency to compete with the U.S. dollar. Although globalization has been the focus of U.S. financial hege- mony, with the resurgence of the European Union and the growing industrial and economic might of the fastest-growing economies, U.S. hegemony increasingly rests on the pillar of the military. An understanding of forward planning and war requires a fundamental grasp of contemporary militarism as the U.S. corporate and bureaucratic leaders prepare the population for wars in all corners of the globe in its fight against the so-called axis of evil.9 At the present conjuncture, where the world metamorphoses from the cen- tury of physics and chemistry into the biotech century, far-reaching technological changes with major implications for militarism have taken place. The explosion of information systems forms one component of the general explosion of technological change in a society still guided by the ideas of monopoly-capitalism militarism (or the era of steel and railways). The mechanical representation of life that emanated from this period of Taylorism had its impact on all aspects of U.S. life, including the military. Now, however, forward planning is compounded by the laws of unforeseen circumstances and the complexity of the present international system. This com- plexity emanates from the multifaceted nature of life and the reality that social phe- nomena have become far removed from the kind of simplicity, predictability, and determinism associated with the Newtonian machine. Despite the tremendous technological changes that have occurred from the era of iron and steel through the nuclear era to the present era of biotechnology and hydrogen fuel cells, the methods of organizing social life are still based on the ideas of Adam Smith. Urban spaces and the organization of production, consumption, education, and leisure continue to center around the idea of the market’s invisible hands, racial hierarchy, and male privilege without regard for the health and safety of the majority. At the level of the factory, the technological revolution has changed the nature of assembly-line production so that the massive number of workers needed at the end of the Second World War is no longer necessary.10 The deindustrialization of society and the massive layoffs of workers spawned the revitalization of the ideas of social Darwinism, which justified the unequal dis- tribution of wealth. Simultaneously, the ideas of the genetic inferiority of Africans and other peoples of color found a new base among scholars studying the human gene pool. The so-established hierarchy of human beings ensured that society cele- brated genocide as progress. This celebration has been reproduced at the cultural level, providing a material basis for the myths of white superiority. In the transition from the cold war, the ideological management of the work- ing peoples depends increasingly on psychological warfare to ensure loyalty and patriotism. Previously, in the era of the bipolar world (the fight against communism), the participation of the working peoples in war was obtained through major conces- sions such as redistribution of income, decent housing and education, trade union power, and other, similar aspects of the welfare state. During the period of the cold war, the extent to which the working peoples were willing and able to fight for the capitalist class was based on the fear of communism. In this way the “military- industrial-entertainment complex” was able to create the conditions for its own reproduction. However, at the present conjuncture of society’s deindustrialization, where the working peoples can no longer survive on one income in the household, military spending has continued to rise, financed by both the depression of the real wage and the intensification of international plunder. The majority of poor working people subsidize this military spending, and the appeals to patriotic sacrifice to fight terrorism have served as a cover for the new ide- ological coercion of the majority of the U.S. population. Politicians are seduced into this military infrastructure through the military contractors spreading the work of weapons manufacturing over forty-eight states. While the wage of the working peo- ple is depressed, the military has advanced plans to carry out urban warfare.11 Armaments Culture The United States ranks number one in arms sales and is at the apex of the global armaments culture. This culture is self-reinforcing and in many respects self-defeat- ing for the majority of humanity as the armaments culture connects the primary accumulators to the arms manufacturers, the media and image managers, military entrepreneurs, defense contractors, congressional representatives, policy entrepre- neurs, university funding, and humanitarian experts. Peace activists have made the androcentric, masculinist, violent, and sexist nature of the United States a prime tar- get for work in the transformation of the military, from Colombia to Yemen, to the Philippines, to the older bases in South Korea and Turkey. The cultural struggles that emanate from this confrontation touch the deepest sense of society’s future, and the war against terrorism brings out most clearly the divide in society. Space does not allow for a detailed exposition of the full integration of the media and the military establishment. However, many important studies exist on these questions, so it is not crucial here to spell out the historic links between the military and the entertainment industry.12 Billions of dollars are expended to simu- late situations that emotionally tie citizens to the ideology and practices of mili- tarism. There is now a group of U.S. capitalists acting as military consultants for the motion picture and television industries. Educational institutions from the univer- sities down to kindergartens are also being ensnared into this armaments culture.13 Psychological warfare and disinformation in the United States are linked to the ideologies of white superiority, heterosexism, and hegemonic masculinity. Con- cepts of masculinity and valor have deep roots in the armaments culture and build on the traditions of sex and conquest in society. Rape, violence, and plunder have been associated with the military for so long in “real life” and in the media that efforts are now mounted to create female warriors, undermining the gains of the women’s movement. With the rise of the militant women’s movement, the media has begun to portray women who have the same “masculine” proficiency, knowledge, and courage as their male counterparts in the defense of law and order and in the fight against white privilege. The culture of rape and misogyny lies deeply embedded in the ideology of the U.S. ruling class, and homophobia reinforces this culture. Fear of homosexuals and homosexuality run deep in the popular culture, and the military reproduces it with the assumption that homosexuals will undermine its fighting capabilities. Sex- ism, homophobia, and racial prejudices are given free rein in the military, yet the political leadership, through misinformation, presents the military as standing at the forefront of combating racism and sexism by the integration of women and people of color into its ranks. The renewed social contract between the rulers and the ruled along with the culture of violence reinforce the thrust for global hegemony and cushion the arma- ments manufacturers. This combination, along with the ideology of national security and the glorification of warfare, has been called the armaments culture. It is a system of beliefs, values, understandings, practices, and institutions that legitimizes the massive military budget of the United States, the trillion-dollar expenditure on nuclear and biological weapons, and the massive deployment of U.S. troops all around the globe for the preparation and launching of war. This culture serves a definite purpose within the United States by deflecting the fears, anger, and alienation of U.S. citizens and turning this anger and despair into a source of pride and patriotism (flag waving and displays of flags in all spaces). More significantly, the conservative militias reproducing racist ideas have undergone rehabilitation in the name and context of the patriotic fervor now enshrined in law with the Patriot Act and the establishment of the Office of Homeland Security. Since the end of the Vietnam War, the peace movement in the United States and scholars dedicated to a new mode of social organization have argued for the con- version of the military-industrial complex to ensure the availability of resources needed to clean up cities and toxic dumps.14 Organizations such as the National Commission for Economic Conversion and Disarmament have produced numerous writings on the revolution in technology and the opportunities offered by the new technologies for the demilitarized society. However, these organizations, though important, remain ineffective, as they do not link up with the mass mobilization forces organizing against the prison-industrial complex. The leading elements of the present ruling class are not unaware of the advanced plans for the conversion of the military-industrial complex. Yet in the face of the antiglobalization and peace move- ments, there are even more strident efforts to bring the Pentagon in line with the required changes for global domination and homeland security. For years the forward planners (called revolutionaries in the Pentagon) have argued that a current revolution in technology was outmoding the Pentagon’s old organization. In reality, there is the fear of the oppressed majority’s unity in struggle. The military planners’ arguments focus on the new “threats” resulting from the rev- olution in the technology of war and the nature of new weapons emanating from bio-engineering. They call for adaptation to changing conditions, pointing out that large, expensive weapons systems that took forever to produce represented as much of an enemy as hostile foreign powers. This revolution in military affairs emanates from the reality that the military is still organized around the Fordist model of the nineteenth-century factory and relies on forms of command, control, and communication out of step with the eco- nomic and technological changes under way in the biotech century. The military is organized around what military language calls “the second generation of warfare.”15 Given the rise of forces for freedom, the forces of repression need a new veil to oppress those struggling for self-determination. Terrorists and Liberators Whether in Guatemala, El Salvador, the Congo, Chile, Angola, Israel, or Nicaragua, the U.S. government and intelligence services have supported terrorist leaders and governments. When Osama bin Laden and Jonas Savimbi were regarded as allies fighting communism in Afghanistan and Angola, Nelson Mandela was considered a terrorist. To the present day, some members of the African National Congress are barred from entry into the United States on grounds of having been members of a terrorist organization.16 During the Vietnam War, the Bertrand Russell Tribunal noted that the U.S. Army constituted an institution of racial genocide.17 The U.S. government’s record of supporting terror all over the world explains its opposition to the establishment of an international criminal court. Vast and unchecked powers have now been accorded to an executive that has demonstrated flagrant disregard for the rule of law. This same executive has established a mechanism to operate secret military tribunals. The wholesale suspension of civil liberties, the silencing of political dissent, the assault on privacy, and the stripping of constitutional protection for legal immigrants, along with the inflated powers for the intelligence services have given the present U.S. gov- ernment far more power than the repressive machinery of Hitler’s Germany. Sur- veillance of all kinds is becoming routine in society. Because the United States is iso- lated internationally, the imperative for repression intensifies at home. As a result, the ruling class whips up insecurity and racial tensions, giving rise to the acceptance of racial profiling in society. The Patriot Act has reinforced the racist stereotypes of the conservative forces, while underlining black and other forms of racial profiling ongoing in the areas of eugenics and biological research. Racial Profiling in the Biotech Century Today, wealth and democracy are clashing at the same time that the United States is returning to its racist roots. From the time of the enslavement of the African pop- ulation, the wealth of the very rich has depended on dividing workers and mobiliz-ing exploited whites to persecute African Americans. Racial profiling during the period of slavery was entrenched in the fugitive slave laws, and the popular press mobilized ordinary whites to think of African Americans as inferior people. Yet from the seventeenth century onward, the African American population led the struggle for peace and economic transformation, with the civil rights period representing a major turning point. In that period, U.S. capitalists developed a conscious plan to recruit a section of the black middle class as their allies. This class has come into prominence with representatives such as Clarence Thomas, Colin Powell, Con- doleezza Rice, and Ward Connerly presented as success stories to the mass of poor blacks. The racial profiling and targeting of suspected terrorists in the United States brings the ideas and organization of yesterday’s racial oppression in line with new technologies and the contemporary eugenics movement. Eugenics had become pop- ularized in the United States in the wake of the reproduction of nineteenth-century biological determinism. Between 1880 and 1940, the eugenics movement repre- sented a dominant social movement. No less a person than the former president Theodore Roosevelt wrote on the duties of the “right kind of citizen of the right type” and the prevention of the “wrong people from breeding.”18 Positive eugenics has been described as selective breeding to improve the characteristics of an organism or species. Negative eugenics involved the systematic elimination of so-called undesirable biological traits. The sterilization laws orches- trated in the United States before 1945 were based on the need to ensure “positive breeding.” Only after the triumph of Nazi science did larger sections of the United States begin to grasp the full implications of eugenics theories. Yet the ideas sur- vived, thrived, and are now gaining new acceptance in U.S. society. The relationship between eugenics and biological warfare from the period of Hitler on is one of tremendous importance in the search for new ethical principles. These principles must challenge the ethics and values of competition and master- race theories. The application of genetic engineering technologies in order to render the system of modern warfare more efficient requires sustained experimentation in laboratories and over tightly controlled populations. Identification of potentially vio- lent children brought racial profiling to a new level, consistent with current practices in the educational system to “weed out” disruptive youngsters. The marriage between the priorities of the private educational corporations and the pharmaceu- tical companies in the area of genetic research and the interest of the Pentagon in chemical and biological warfare has created a new force, which fundamentally informs the nature of contemporary militarism and repression. With the emergence of DNA gene technology and the interest in designer weapons, tremendous dangers for humanity result from the research and development of new weapons of mass destruction.19 Opposing Biological Warfare Experiments The history of racism and eugenics in the United States surfaced in the form of the Tuskegee experiments from 1932 to 1972. No safeguards exist in society today to ensure that similar tests are not now underway. Peace activists, scientists, and all of those who want to retreat from the ideas of the master race are challenged by the ways in which policy-making bodies and research institutions are implicated in sup- porting research for the breeding and the preservation of a so-called master race. Numerous signs indicate the ways in which the corporate thrust of university work compromises the scientific community. Peace researchers and activists will have to begin to develop a philosophical understanding of the present “weeding” process of Western medicine. The callous responses of the leading industrial societies to the AIDS pandemic in Africa reinforce the belief among many African Americans that new viruses such as AIDS and Ebola were engineered in the laboratory. Moreover, the news of the efforts of Wouter Basson to weaponize AIDS during the era of apartheid in South Africa lend credence to those who believe that AIDS emanated from biological warfare experiments. The worldwide struggle to find a cure for AIDS is a central aspect of the struggle for world peace. Genetic engineering in the pres- ent period serves as the perfect vehicle for extending the pseudoscience of the Enlightenment and the hierarchy of races implicit in the globalization of apartheid. The military applications of genetic engineering tools must grip the attention of those seeking peace as the lessons of earlier periods of biological warfare and eugenic thinking become more available in the public domain. The issues of cloning and stem cell research reveal the need for an extension of the concept of democracy to cover public control over scientific research.20 Racial profiling in the United States is being taken to a completely new stage in the scientific community as the possibil- ity of genetic discrimination increases.21 Toward a Culture of Peace In this analysis of the contemporary manifestations of the catastrophe of capitalism and the main contradictions of the present forms of accumulation, I have highlighted the ways in which the armaments culture reproduces the conditions for capitalist plunder. The emphasis on changes in the knowledge economy and the transforma- tions in the era of hydrogen fuel cell technology is meant to bring to light the imper- atives of new forms of domination. The rules of the World Trade Organization in relation to the patenting of life forms represent a new kind of total domination. The relationship between German fascism and militarism demonstrates how, in the absence of a major peace movement dedicated to transforming society, the impetus toward capital accumulation on a world scale can carry a society to the most destructive paths.22 When the war in Vietnam was brought into the living rooms of U.S. citizens, many youths refused to take on the imperial role the war demanded of them. The antiwar movement strengthened the nascent peace movement, the latter barely audible during McCarthyism. The antiwar, black liberation, environmental justice, gay and lesbian, peace, and women’s movements created a new base of pol- itics in the United States. In order to achieve a new way forward, the movements had to build new bases of social power. Martin Luther King Jr. had called for a revolution of values in order to bring jus- tice and fairness to the U.S. political system. For a short period of time, the peace and black liberation movements managed to drive a wedge into the ranks of the U.S. ruling class, creating sharp divisions therein. As a result, sections of the capitalist class did not believe in the necessity of repression in dealing with the antiwar movement. Long-term planners believed that the society was robust enough ultimately to co-opt the protesters. Slowly, it became clearer that the struggle for peace could not be linear and based on opposition to military spending, but had to be linked to the transformation of the social system. This reality underscored the fact that the building of peace con- stituted a process and not an event associated with a single-issue campaign, such as ending U.S. military interventions in Central America, the war against Iraq, or the closing of the School of the Americas. Each of the antiwar campaigns built on the legacies of a larger movement. The consolidation of the peace movement coincided with the intensification of militarism and military culture, with images of warfare promoted in the War on Drugs, the War on Poverty, the War on Crime, and the var- ious wars against youth. The draconian laws now implemented under the Patriot Act have energized the social forces dedicated to peace. The antiglobalization campaign and the peace campaign merged with the reparations movement of African descendants and indigenous peoples at the third UN World Conference against Racism. It was not by chance that the U.S. government opposed the declarations of the meeting and sought in every way to cut off the U.S. population from the international struggles repre- sented there. Ultimately, the repressive thrust of the present U.S. government was also directed against other sections of capital that did not support its goals. The strengthened reparations movement in the United States creates a new space for the interrogation of past crimes and for a thorough rethinking of the whole basis for the social organization of society. This movement currently divides over the exact meaning of reparations—monetary compensation or a campaign for the full healing from past crimes. Valuing Human Life and the Goals of Transformation for Peace This reflection has been premised on the challenge of how those forces dedicated to peace can accelerate the transformation of society and develop human potential for self-emancipation from all forms of bondage and restrictions—mental, racial, economic, gender-based. From the outset, it must be stated that the pursuit of peace and the search for transformation cannot remain linear, but must link up with a mul- tifaceted process interconnected with the renewal of the human spirit. The multi- faceted transformation for peace involves inter alia (a) material transformations, the reorganization of the priorities of the economy and redistribution of wealth in soci- ety; (b) the transformation of gender relations, a break from the privileging of maleness, chauvinism, and homophobia; (c) political transformation involving self- emancipation, the development of democratic institutions, and freedom from all oppression and repression; (d) military transformation, a retreat from the history of racial genocide and imperial domination, and the establishment of peoples’ security; and (e) cultural transformation, involving a new culture based on unleashing the cre- ative potential of the people and sharpening the appetite of the youth for self- discovery. It is in the process of cultural transformation, in the process of building an alternative culture of peace, that a sustained assault on the armaments culture will take place.23 Conclusion In 1999 in The Hague, the very same venue where the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom congregated in 1915, peace activists from all over the world met to chart a new course for peace. In this meeting, peace in one country was explicitly tied to world peace. This linkage constituted a major step forward because it meant the recognition of the fact that peace was incompatible with genocide. The declaration of the meeting in The Hague created new rallying calls for the peace movement in the twenty-first century. The Hague Appeal for Peace 1999 spelled out ten fundamental principles for a just world order: 1. Every government should adopt a resolution prohibiting the government from going to war. 2. All states should unconditionally accept the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court of Justice. 3. Every government should ratify the International Criminal Court and implement the Mine Ban Treaty. 4. All states should integrate the New Diplomacy—the partnership of governments, international organizations, and civil society. 5. The world cannot ignore humanitarian crises, but every creative diplomatic means possible must be exhausted before resorting to force under UN authority. 6. Negotiations for a Convention Eliminating Nuclear Weapons should begin immediately. 7. The trade in small arms should be severely restricted. 8. Economic rights must be taken as seriously as civil rights. 9. Peace education should be compulsory in every school. 10. The plan for the Global Action to Prevent War should become the basis for a peaceful world order. The goals of the international peace movement represent a major step away from the doublespeak of the capitalists presently seeking to manipulate the concepts of peace to reinforce repression. The major question before the citizens of the United States, and indeed before humanity, is the issue of the form of human orga- nization necessary to achieve the dignity of all human beings. This question inte- grally relates to what form of human organization can best use the planet’s resources for the reproduction of the human species, while cleaning up the destruction of the past. This would break with the past “ideal” of achieving peace within the context of a racist and capitalist society. However, before that point is reached, all of the horrors of the present investment in militarism will have to be revealed. Only then will the whole population awaken to the fact that another world must be possible

3/14/19

ND DA- VAWA

Tournament: Glenbrooks | Round: 2 | Opponent: Valley AJ | Judge: Jonathan HorowitzThe Violence Against Women Act is on the chopping block – Dec. 7 is key – it will pass nowWashburn, 10/3 https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2018/10/vawa-at-risk-of-lapsing/, OPENSECRETS NEWS, Violence Against Women Act at risk of lapsing, By Kaitlin Washburn, Kaitlin joined CRP as a fall reporting intern in August 2018. She is in her senior year at the Missouri School of Journalism where she studies investigative journalism. For over two years, she's worked at Investigative Reporters and Editors. October 3, 2018A landmark piece of federal legislation aimed at protecting women from violent crimes seems to be a low priority for the 115th Congress. The Violence Against Women Act was included in a defense and health spending bill passed last month. However, it was only granted a short-term reauthorization until Dec. 7. “It should absolutely be prioritized, Congress should be engaging in a real way with sexual assault advocates,” said Terri Poore, the policy director for the National Alliance to End Sexual Violence. “This extension is just kicking the can down the road till after the election.” In 1994, then-Sen. Joe Biden drafted VAWA during the aftermath of the Anita Hill hearings. It passed both the Senate and the House of Representatives as a part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, and it was signed by President Bill Clinton. The law set aside funding for investigations into violent crimes associated with domestic and sexual violence designed to end violence against women. VAWA also financed legal aid, funded shelters for victims, provided federal grants for advocacy groups helping domestic violence survivors and toughened federal charges for abusers. In 1991, Hill alleged that then-Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas sexually harassed her when they worked together at the United States Department of Education and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Now, 27 years later, another Supreme Court nominee, Brett Kavanaugh, is facing allegations of sexual assault. Dr. Christine Blasey Ford alleged Kavanaugh assaulted her when they were teenagers in the early 1980s. Biden, who is considering a bid for president in 2020, was criticized for how he handled the Hill and Thomas hearings when he was chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. His role in the 1991 hearings has come under scrutiny again in the midst of Ford and Kavanaugh hearings. Each time reauthorization nears, advocacy groups work together through the National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence to do extensive outreach to learn what parts of VAWA are working and what needs improving. Updates are always necessary to ensure that the programs are effective, Poore said. “We had been making progress with Congress on getting the reauthorization approved, so it’s pretty disappointing to just get this short-term extension,” Poore said. That being said, Poore said she is hopeful that they will get the full reauthorization approved eventually. Demand for services like rape and sexual assault support has skyrocketed recently and the funding can’t meet those needs, she said.

Congressional Republicans have repeatedly prioritized candidates right to privacy over public right to know Yglesias 10/3 (Matthew Yglesias, 10/13/18, “Seriously, we need to see Donald Trump’s tax returns Congress could produce them with a simple committee vote, but Republicans are covering for Trump,” https://www.vox.com/2018/10/3/17932216/donald-trumps-tax-returns) HDSFar from being a self-made man who built a business empire with just a tiny, $1 million loan from dad, Donald Trump is in fact the beneficiary of hundreds of millions of dollars from his father in the 1990s — gifts that were mostly heavily disguised to avoid taxes, and some of which appear to have been outright fraudulent. That’s the inescapable conclusion of an epic New York Times investigation into the president’s finances that’s based on “tens of thousands of pages of confidential records — bank statements, financial audits, accounting ledgers, cash disbursement reports, invoices and canceled checks” including more than 200 tax returns from Donald’s father Fred Trump and various companies and trusts he set up. But what the Times does not have is what the American people have become accustomed to getting from their presidents — recent personal tax information in the form of returns. Close scrutiny given to Fred Trump’s businesses reveals what appears to be a range of illegal activity. But since he passed away nearly 20 years ago and his main years of business activity ended before that, everything the Times has is fairly old, typically featuring matters for which the statute of limitations has expired and which no longer reflect the current state of Trump’s affairs. But the fact that the president appears to have been involved in serious financial crimes in the past finally puts a very heavy finger on the most likely reason for his unprecedented lack of transparency — he didn’t magically stop committing crimes in the mid-1990s, he’s just been getting away with it in an era of reduced enforcement and he fears his documents wouldn’t stand up to scrutiny. As a candidate, Trump promised to release these documents. Now that he’s in office, Congress can make him. But congressional Republicans have steadfastly refused to do so. The American people, however, have a right to know whether or not the president is a crook. And the best way to find out is either for the GOP to change its mind about this or for them to lose their majority so Democrats can do the job for them. Donald Trump, white-collar criminal The Times’s investigation is exhaustive and, to some extent, defies summary. But it’s worth recounting perhaps the most egregious thing they uncovered as an illustrative example of the scope of crimes that serious forensic accounting work can reveal. This was basically a two-scams-for-the-price-of-one caper, in which Fred Trump formed a shell company secretly owned by his children. The company pretended to perform useful services for rent-stabilized buildings that Fred owned, allowing him to gift money to his children without paying gift tax, and then its bogus accounting was used to justify rent increases to regulators: The most overt fraud was All County Building Supply and Maintenance, a company formed by the Trump family in 1992. All County’s ostensible purpose was to be the purchasing agent for Fred Trump’s buildings, buying everything from boilers to cleaning supplies. It did no such thing, records and interviews show. Instead All County siphoned millions of dollars from Fred Trump’s empire by simply marking up purchases already made by his employees. Those millions, effectively untaxed gifts, then flowed to All County’s owners — Donald Trump, his siblings and a cousin. Fred Trump then used the padded All County receipts to justify bigger rent increases for thousands of tenants. While this is a particularly shocking crime because of the way it was used to defraud thousands of tenants as well as tax authorities, the Times reveals that it was not by any means unique in terms of Trump cheating on his taxes. And more strikingly, even before the Times’s investigation, we had numerous examples of Trump operating as a habitual criminal. He got his start as a celebrity after the New York Times published an article detailing federal housing discrimination charges brought against him and his father. The charges were, ultimately, settled without admission of fault — something that would be a pattern for Trump over the years. That his first foray into the real estate business involved criminal acts didn’t stop him from continuing in that business. When he later branched out into casinos, he got caught accepting an illegal loan from his father to stay afloat and got off with a slap on the wrist. He was allowed to continue in that business as well. From his empty-box tax scam to money laundering at his casinos to racial discrimination in his apartments to Federal Trade Commission violations for his stock purchases to Securities and Exchange Commission violations for his financial reporting, Trump has spent his entire career breaking various laws, getting caught, and then essentially plowing ahead unharmed. When he was caught engaging in illegal racial discrimination to please a mob boss, he paid a fine. There was no sense that this was a repeated pattern of violating racial discrimination law, and certainly no desire to take a closer look at his various personal and professional connections to the Mafia. Even as late as the post-election transition period, Trump was allowed to settle a lawsuit about defrauding customers of his fake university rather than truly face the music. (Interestingly, the fact that the university was fake was not, itself, actionable fraud at all.) One of Trump’s real insights in life was to see this bug in the system. When it comes to these kinds of crimes, it’s typically in government officials’ interest to agree to a settlement that gives them positive headlines and raises some cash while letting them move on to the next investigation. But while these decisions can make sense individually, they let serial offenders repeat their crimes over and over again. Meanwhile, throughout the decades of Trump’s rise, the legal climate has only gotten more permissive. Trump’s tax returns likely won’t stand up to scrutiny In response to the Times’s investigation, the White House put out a statement that was full of bluster about the many wonderful things Trump has achieved as president but that did not deny any of the specific facts alleged. Instead, press secretary Sarah Sanders merely observed that “many decades ago the IRS reviewed and signed off on these transactions.” It’s not entirely clear that the IRS did review all of these transactions, but it’s unquestionably true that Trump, in some sense, got away with it. The truth is that lots of people get away with lots of crimes and that doesn’t make it okay. About 40 percent of murders went unsolved in the United States in 2016, which is a very typical number. The IRS, unfortunately, is no more perfect in its work than any other law enforcement agency. And as a brilliant ProPublica exposé published a couple of days before the Times’s investigation showed, the IRS has been starved of resources in recent years, making it even harder for them to catch rich tax cheats. ProPublica This was not, to be clear, a case of austerity imposed by budgetary necessity. The IRS believes that business owners like Trump illegally underpay taxes by about $125 billion per year, based on macroeconomic estimates. Investing in catching those tax cheats would pay off easily, but congressional Republicans haven't wanted to do it because, arguably, they think it’s good that rich business owners are able to get away with cheating on their taxes. But this also gives tax-cheating business owners very good reason to fear transparency and disclosure. While the IRS is relatively unlikely to get a hard, rigorous look at any particular rich person’s complicated tax submissions, the president of the United States would find his finances heavily scrutinized in the press and by Congress. Trump got away with tax evasion during an era of generally more rigorous enforcement. It’s very unlikely that he simply stopped doing it during the more recent years when enforcement got laxer. If he disclosed his tax returns, we would find out about whatever scams he’s been running. That’s why he doesn’t want us to see them and that’s why we need to see them. Republicans are covering for Trump’s shady finances Trump’s tax returns seem, in many ways, like the Chekhov’s gun of our current political moment. They initially became a subject of public conversation back when the universal assumption was that Trump wasn’t serious about running for president. The basic thinking was that any real presidential candidate would need to disclose his tax returns, and, obviously, would never do that because they would reveal that he was lying about his net worth — something “everybody” in sophisticated business and media circles already knew. But, of course, Trump did run, which again simply led to speculation that he would drop out before needing to release his returns. But then he started winning primaries. And while his Republican adversaries wielded the tax return issue against him, he fought back furiously. The focus quickly became the entertaining nature of Trump’s feuds with other high-profile conservatives. When Trump became the Republican nominee, he started promising he would release his tax returns at some hypothetical future point when a mysterious audit was completed. Existing law gives the congressional tax-writing committees the authority to obtain and disclose individuals’ tax returns if there is a legitimate public purpose for doing so. Congress could have done this at any point during the general election campaign. Nevertheless, even though a fairly large number of congressional Republicans declined to endorse Trump in 2016, they all wanted him to do well in the election (if for no other reason to avoid down-ballot losses). So they allowed him to move forward with an unprecedented lack of financial disclosure. Once he won the election, the case for oversight became stronger, but Republicans who’d once criticized or distanced themselves from Trump became uniformly devoted to the cause of covering for him. Plus, Republicans have uniformly resisted Democratic efforts to force disclosure. We won’t really know why Trump is hiding his returns until he stops hiding them. But the message of the Times’s investigation is fairly clear: He’s a guy with a track record of doing illegal things with his taxes. That, rather than some vague sense of embarrassment, is probably what he wants covered up. And while congressional Republicans may tell themselves these returns are no big deal, the truth of the matter is that they have no idea how serious the crimes are that they’re helping Trump hide — in part because the GOP has, as a policy matter, decided that it’s good when rich people cheat on their taxes.

GOP loads up lame-duck agenda as House control teeters Autoplay: On | Off Republican lawmakers are packing their agenda for the lame-duck session after the Nov. 6 elections, recognizing it could be their last shot for at least two years to pass legislation under unified GOP control of Congress. Their top priorities include spending legislation, the farm bill, a package to extend expiring tax breaks, criminal justice reform, reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act and passing the Jobs Act 3.0, which is intended to spur capital formation. Also high on the to-do list is a batch of executive and judicial branch nominees — including 36 federal District Court and three circuit court judges. Asked about the agenda for December, Senate Republican Whip John Cornyn (Texas) said, “Nominations, more nominations.” Many of the legislative items on the GOP agenda could be weighed down or even pushed aside by a partisan brawl over President Trump’s demand that Congress fund construction of a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. “There’s going to be a major fight over that and that’s going to make progress on other areas difficult,” said Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.), a member of the House Appropriations Committee. Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) on Wednesday opened the door to a possible deal by saying Democrats are not opposed to strengthening the U.S. border. “We Democrats believe in strong border security,” he said, noting that the Senate immigration reform bill backed by Democrats in 2013 included billions of dollars in border security funding. “We’re going to keep fighting for the strongest, toughest border security.” Cole later said Schumer’s remarks could pave the way for a compromise linking border wall funding to legislation shielding immigrants who came to the country illegally as children — known as "Dreamers" — from deportation. “The natural deal is DACA and the wall,” he said, referring to the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program that Trump rescinded last year, putting young immigrants at risk of removal. But Republicans acknowledge that getting a deal on the border wall and other contentious issues will depend on the outcome of the midterm elections. “What kind of mood the Democrats are in, I don’t think we know,” Cole said. Schumer on Tuesday said he would discuss Democratic priorities for the lame duck at a later date. Senate Republican Conference Chairman John Thune (S.D.) said there’s strong desire among GOP lawmakers to pass a package of so-called tax extenders and to make some corrections to the $1.5 trillion tax-reform legislation Congress passed last year. “There will be an attempt to try and get as much done as we can before the end of this calendar year,” Thune said. “We could get something done on finishing up the tax reform stuff of last year, technical corrections.” SPONSORED CONTENT An Insane Credit Card Offering 0 Interest Until 2019 SPONSORED BY NEXTADVISOR Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) on Wednesday told reporters that he would put criminal justice reform legislation on the floor in the lame-duck session if it can garner 60 votes to overcome a potential filibuster. “Criminal justice has been much discussed,” he said. “What we’ll do after the election is take a whip count and if there are more than 60 senators who want to go forward on that bill, we’ll find time to address it.” That legislation combines a House-passed prison reform bill, the First Step Act, with bipartisan sentencing reform provisions crafted by the Senate. It is a top priority of senior White House adviser Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law. Trump signaled he could support the criminal justice reform compromise when he met with Republican senators in early August. McConnell has never been a big fan of the legislation, which divides his caucus, but Trump’s support is a major factor to consider. “We’re going to try real hard to get it done,” said Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), who helped put the compromise together. Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) says it now looks certain that the farm bill, which has been stuck in protracted Senate and House negotiations, won’t move until after the election. “We’re making progress, we are closing out titles,” he said. GOP lawmakers are also pressing for action on reforms that have been under discussion for months by the Joint Select Committee on Budget and Appropriations Reform. Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.), a member of the task force, said Congress needs to pass the reforms and they need to be signed by the president by the end of the year, at which time the select committee will dissolve. Also up for consideration is legislation overhauling how Congress handles sexual harassment claims and bills designed to improve the security of U.S. elections and to slap sanctions on foreign powers that try to interfere in U.S. elections. Senate and House negotiators have yet to reconcile measures passed by each chamber dealing with sexual harassment, and the election security measure could hinge on what, if any, meddling is seen in connection with the midterm elections. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), who played a prominent role in pushing the Senate to pass sexual harassment legislation earlier this year, said she would talk to McConnell about its timing after the election, adding that Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) will also be needed to help push the measure toward the finish line. “I will speak to Sen. McConnell again because we’re just waiting on Republican leadership,” she said. “We’re waiting on both Speaker Ryan and Leader McConnell to decide to let the bills be conferenced.” Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), who has jurisdiction over the issue as chairman of the Senate Rules Committee, said part of the problem is that the House had been out of session in August and recently recessed again to allow lawmakers to campaign for the midterms. “If you look back at the end of July on, there have been maybe 10 days when House and Senate members have really been here at the same time,” he said. Blunt, who also has jurisdiction over the election security legislation, said he was uncertain of its prospects in the lame-duck session. “I don’t know about that. We will certainly look at the election and see what happened,” he added. “I’m never very optimistic about a lame duck.” “It will be totally dependent on what happens Election Day, the whole atmosphere,” Blunt said. Cornyn, the second-ranking GOP leader in the Senate, said Congress needs to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act. “That goes until Dec. 7, so we’ll need to address that before then,” he said.

Local advocates for women are asking Congress to reauthorize the "Violence Against Women Act" before it expires. Congressman John Katko stopped by Vera House to highlight the need for its reauthorization. Sexual assault victims also gathered to show their support. The act has helped protect and support millions of women who have faced domestic violence and sexual assault. Congressman Katko led a push earlier this month, calling on Republican leaders to work with Democrats for a long-term reauthorization measure. The act is set to expire on December 7. Supporters say this renewal couldn't be more timely. "Conversations about what does the 'Me Too' movement really mean, when do we believe survivors? What does it mean if survivors don't come forward immediately? And all of the reasons we in this work and in the room know why they don't. We stand together to say if Congress can join forces and act in a bipartisan fashion, and secure reauthorization, it will let survivors know they have been heard," said Vera House Executive Director Randi Bregman. The act was most recently reauthorized in 2013 to include immigrant and LGBTQ populations. It was signed into law in 1994.

It’s the biggest impact and turns case – we have the best methodology Hudson, 2012 Valerie M. Hudson is professor and George H.W. Bush Chair at The Bush School of Government and Public Service at Texas AandM University. Her research concerns foreign policy analysis, security studies, gender and international relations, and methodology, and her articles have appeared in such journals as International Security, Journal of Peace Research, Political Psychology, and Foreign Policy Analysis. https://foreignpolicy.com/2012/04/24/what-sex-means-for-world-peace/ARGUMENT, What Sex Means for World Peace The evidence is clear: The best predictor of a state's stability is how its women are treated. BY VALERIE M. HUDSON | APRIL 24, 2012, 6:15 PM

In the academic field of security studies, realpolitik dominates. Those who adhere to this worldview are committed to accepting empirical evidence when it is placed before their eyes, to see the world as it “really” is and not as it ideally should be. As Walter Lippmann wrote, “We must not substitute for the world as it is an imaginary world.” Well, here is some robust empirical evidence that we cannot ignore: Using the largest extant database on the status of women in the world today, which I created with three colleagues, we found that there is a strong and highly significant link between state security and women’s security. In fact, the very best predictor of a state’s peacefulness is not its level of wealth, its level of democracy, or its ethno-religious identity; the best predictor of a state’s peacefulness is how well its women are treated. What’s more, democracies with higher levels of violence against women are as insecure and unstable as nondemocracies. Our findings, detailed in our new book out this month, Sex and World Peace, echo those of other scholars, who have found that the larger the gender gap between the treatment of men and women in a society, the more likely a country is to be involved in intra- and interstate conflict, to be the first to resort to force in such conflicts, and to resort to higher levels of violence. On issues of national health, economic growth, corruption, and social welfare, the best predictors are also those that reflect the situation of women. What happens to women affects the security, stability, prosperity, bellicosity, corruption, health, regime type, and (yes) the power of the state. The days when one could claim that the situation of women had nothing to do with matters of national or international security are, frankly, over. The empirical results to the contrary are just too numerous and too robust to ignore. But as we look around at the world, the situation of women is anything but secure. Our database rates countries based on several categories of women’s security from 0 (best) to 4 (worst). The scores were assigned based on a thorough search of the more than 130,000 data points in the WomanStats Database, with two independent evaluators having to reach a consensus on each country’s score. On our scale measuring the physical security of women, no country in the world received a 0. Not one. The world average is 3.04, attesting to the widespread and persistent violence perpetrated against women worldwide, even among the most developed and freest countries. The United States, for instance, scores a 2 on this scale, due to the relative prevalence of domestic violence and rape. It’s ironic that authors such as Steven Pinker who claim that the world is becoming much more peaceful have not recognized that violence against women in many countries is, if anything, becoming more prevalent, not less so, and dwarfs the violence produced through war and armed conflict. To say a country is at peace when its women are subject to femicide — or to ignore violence against women while claiming, as Pinker does, that the world is now more secure — is simply oxymoronic.

11/17/18

ND K- Gender

Tournament: Glenbrooks | Round: 2 | Opponent: Valley AJ | Judge: Jonathan HorowitzThe Aff’s fixation on right to know of candidates is part of a masculine gaze designed to ensure violence against women – knowledge is not neutral. Rather, surveillance of candidates serves masculine interests – reject it using a feminist epistemologyAbu-Laban 15 Yasmeen, an Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of Alberta, “Gendering Surveillance Studies: The Empirical and Normative Promise of Feminist Methodology”, Surveillance and Society 13(1), pp. 46-50 While discussions of looking have a lineage in 20th century philosophical thought, by the 1970s the idea that “the way we see things is affected by what we know or what we believe” (Berger 1972: 8) was taken up more emphatically in artistic criticism (see also Berger 1980). In other words, a host of assumptions relating to beauty, truth, gender, class and other social relations of power may be at play when humans look. In this same period, an emerging body of feminist theory also came to address “the gaze,” as well as “the body” very directly. A central early contribution was that of Laura Mulvey in her well-known 1975 essay dealing with cinema/media studies. Here she observed: In a world ordered by sexual imbalance, pleasure in looking has been split between active/male and passive/female. The determining male gaze projects its phantasy on to the female figure which is styled accordingly. In their traditional exhibitionist role women are simultaneously looked at and displayed, with their appearance coded for strong visual and erotic impact so that they can be said to connote “to-be-looked-at-ness.” (Mulvey 1975: 11) Such insight was also to be amplified in the work of feminist theorists addressing the changing social context of gender domination. For example, in her 1990 contribution, Sandra Lee Bartky highlighted a shift in modern industrial societies in the regulation of femininity away from previous emphases on chastity, modesty and homemaking toward new ones in which the female body was central (Bartky 1990: 80). Capturing this shift which also involved self-regulation she averred: The woman who checks her make-up half a dozen times a day to see if her foundation has caked or her mascara run, who worries that the wind or rain may spoil her hairdo, who looks frequently to see if her stockings have bagged at the ankle, or who feeling fat, monitors everything she eats, has become, just as surely as the inmate of the Panopticon, a self-policing subject, a self committed to relentless self-surveillance. (1990: 80) Irrespective of the position one may hold about the ubiquitous or universal nature of interpersonal and self monitoring, these foundational insights underscore how attention to gender necessitates consideration of not only how surveillance and control is mediated by technology, but also how it might not be, and the implications of both for girls/boys and women/men. With respect to technology, consider the work of leisure studies specialists who show that tourist spaces are prone to producing different forms of gendered and even sexualized gaze, and the finding that solo female tourists stress that their greatest fear whilst travelling abroad is sexual assault (Jordan and Aitchison 2008: 342). In this way, there is evidence to suggest that for many women who travel alone, the unwanted gaze of certain men they may encounter in ordinary circumstances while away from home is perceived as more threatening than the types of surveillance associated with the electronic eye (Jordan and Aitchison 2008: 343). Notably, human encounters, or the fear of such encounters, work to also restrict the free movement of female tourists (Jordan and Aitchison 2008). This suggests that even without the use of technology women’s mobility may be circumscribed in ways that, arguably, have some parallels with how technologically sophisticated electronic walls and border zones operate to control human movement by the threat of violence. Contemporary Surveillance Studies, following often in the tradition of work established by Michel Foucault, puts a decided emphasis on the role of surveillance in relation to social control (Koskela 2012: 51). An additional insight coming from the fledgling work on gender and surveillance draws attention to the gendered assumptions underpinning forms of external control. For example, Corones and Hardy suggest that in being indifferent to gender, Foucault essentially neglected gender (2009: 393). Their work on cervical cancer screening as a form of medical/health surveillance suggests that this form of surveillance operates to discipline women, and assumes that rational women will also be docile recipients of such screening (2009: 393-396, my emphasis). Working with this stereotyped assumption of quiescence, they show that non-compliance is interpreted as resulting from ignorance, prudishness, or fear (2009: 395). The point being made here is that there are gender-specific norms which may be at play in the way in which a particular form of medical screening operates, which might be different if, for example, the imagined patient were male and neglecting to be screened for prostate or lung cancer. Additionally, feminist analyses highlight how not only externalized control, but also how internalized forms of self-regulation may be gendered and historically specific. This is evident, for example, in a recent study of two generations of women in England reflecting on pregnancy. The findings suggest that the more recent cohort of women experience a much more intense form of public surveillance of pregnancy than their own mothers when it comes to their choices of food, drink, and fashion, as well as their body shape and judging their care given to the unborn (Fox, Heffernan and Nicolson 2009: 553-568). Research findings also suggest more widespread and older technologies—like television—may work in distinct ways with new reality show formats to feed into both public and internalized forms of surveillance and control. Thus Magubane (2008) traces the way the show Starting Over uses African-American female characters to function as “modern mammies” by guiding and monitoring white women to utilize selfdiscipline and seek self-improvement in such areas as weight control, self-esteem, relationships and reducing personal financial debt. Sears and Godderis suggest that the TV reality show A Baby Story engages a form of “lifestyle surveillance” that allows viewers to surveil reality TV participants, and at the same time for the formulaic televised representations to ultimately promote self-surveillance for the (mostly female) audience members. As they put it: “bringing together Foucauldian and feminist theory we argue that the idea of an electronic panopticon is useful in theorizing the potential impact of reality TV shows like A Baby Story” (Sears and Godderis 2011: 183). Taking the panopticon further, studies of the print media, which have systematically shown that female leaders are treated differently than males (Trimble 2007), also suggest that the print media watches with gendered effects. Thus in her analysis of the damaging treatment of former Hewlett-Packard President and CEO Carly Fiorina in The Wall Street Journal, Norander suggests, “For Foucault, the panopticon was the ultimate tool of surveillance—subjects could be watched, but did not know from which angle they were being observed. Women in high profile positions are often subject to such surveillance through the watchful eyes of the press—as well as through the transparency of the ‘glass ceiling’”(Noranger 2008: 103). The work on gender and surveillance also reflects on how state surveillance may take gendered forms. One sphere in which women are especially prone to encountering state surveillance is in the area of social welfare. As a contemporary example, Monahan notes how electronic benefit transfer systems for American welfare and food stamp recipients serve to surveil poor and often racialized women. Introduced in the U.S. as part of the 1996 reform of welfare, ostensibly to prevent fraud, these systems track purchases made with electronic cards, with consequences for individual budgeting strategies and choices (Monahan 2010: 119; see also Eubanks 2012: 82). What is equally noteworthy is that as early as World War One, Britain’s embryonic welfare state pension programme designed for war widows involved gendered bureaucratic surveillance (Smith 2010). In this way, the state effectively replaced the deceased husband as both the financial and moral guardian of war widows (Smith 2010: 524). These findings suggest the deeply embedded forms of gendered bureaucratic surveillance contained in the welfare state, a finding echoed about the judicial branch of the state by criminologists addressing gender and crime. Such work has much to say about how surveillance practices relate to gender and other social divisions (Barak, Leighton and Flavin 2010), how new forms of surveillance and surveillance technologies may reinforce existing social divides along new lines (Coleman and McCahill 2011: 286), and also how a variety of state institutions may be mobilized. On the latter, for instance Flavin draws attention to how the courts, laws and law enforcement agencies, and social welfare/child welfare agencies, work in tandem to effectively “police” women’s reproduction in the United States in relation to conception, abortion, pregnancy and child-rearing (Flavin 2009). The importance of powerful institutions of state and society is further amplified in the work of Virginia Eubanks which provides a feminist take on science, technology and society studies. Specifically, focusing on American programs developed under the Bush and Obama administrations which target the “digital divide,” Eubanks finds these have both underestimated the resources of “poor” communities and neighbourhoods, as well as the ways in which institutions relating to criminal justice, welfare and employment work to shape the relationship between “poor” people and information technology. Notably, in contrast to a dichotomous “digital divide,” the marginalized women interviewed by Eubanks highlighted variable interaction with new technologies based on social location and complex relations of power (2012: 37-39). As such, the interviews with specific women allowed for the emergence of situated knowledge, so central to much feminist epistemology, and highly relevant for thinking about policies advancing “digital equity.” Moreover, interviews with the subjects of surveillance provide one major way in which the technologically driven emphasis of much Surveillance Studies work is not only challenged, but a wider array of experiences and knowledge(s) of surveillance may arise. This is captured in the work of McCahill and Finn (2010) who utilize interviews with UK school-age children (ages 13-16) to illustrate how the actual experience of surveillance varies in relation to class and gender. As such they argue that “it may be useful for future research, including our own, to situate the ‘subjective experiences,’ and ‘behavioural responses’ of the ‘surveilled’ in a wider context by drawing upon sociological theories on ‘identity formation’ in ‘late modernity’” (McCahill and Finn 2010: 286). The gender-specific implications of certain technologies are also a consideration in work done more explicitly on surveillance, gender and other forms of identity. As one chilling example, the potential ways in which new technologies may be used for harmful ends is given in the recent work of Mason and Magnet (2012) on violence against women, and specifically domestic violence. They suggest violence against women is being increasingly facilitated by new technological strategies like tracking of Facebook and Twitter, installing hidden GPS monitors in cars, and use of computer SpyWare to monitor online activities. They show therefore how the strategies abusive partners may utilize to stalk have been amplified (Mason and Magnet 2012: 107-109). In the process, these popular technologies also transform into technologies of violence (Mason and Magnet 2012: 107). One of the more wide-ranging theoretical considerations of gender and surveillance has been helpfully advanced by Torin Monahan who starts with the observation that control is not the only feature of surveillance directed at women. As Monahan (2010: 113) notes, “Studies find that at least one in ten women are watched by control room operators for voyeuristic reasons alone.”2 Monahan also suggests that the gendered implications of surveillance go beyond voyeurism because modern surveillance involves not only what he calls “context or use discrimination” (e.g. males are often in control rooms and may use video surveillance in voyeuristic ways with particular impact on some women) but also “body discrimination” (privileging male young white and able bodies), as well as “discrimination by abstraction” (evident in the ways that technological systems work on abstraction and often bypass context, and thus may be read as relying on “masculine” control at a distance) (Monahan 2010: 114-117). The idea of masculine control at a distance is one that Monahan posits as the most controversial, and it is a point I will return to from a different angle in considering care. To sum up then, by moving beyond the indifferent (and gender blind) tradition of Michel Foucault, and by bringing gender into the heart of discussions, the empirical findings of the fledgling literature explicitly linking gender and surveillance draws attention to how surveillance may work in ways that are technologically mediated as well as in ways that are not. As such, the surveillant gaze may still equally be the human eye, not just the electronic eye, and it may be differentially experienced as recent work on surveillant subjects makes clear. Work explicitly considering gender in Surveillance Studies suggests that forms of external as well as internal control are socially constructed and historically specific, and take gendered forms. The budding work that takes gender explicitly into account draws attention to state surveillance, and also suggests that technologically mediated surveillance may facilitate voyeurism, talking and violence with specific implications for women. These important findings provide a base from which to envision further gendering Surveillance Studies research by building on methodological and epistemological pluralism.

Abstract: This essay situates the fate of the humanities within the broad perspective of the geopolitical economy of neoliberal capitalism. This article adapts Nancy Fraser’s historical analysis of the three phases of the “crisis of care” to understand our latest phase (1975–2017) of the capitalist world system. With respect to higher education, the shift towards privatization has had devastating effects, especially for the humanities and social sciences. By reconsidering the public and social benefits of higher education, we can restore the educational core of the humanities. Keywords: higher education; crisis of care; privatization; social benefits; public commons; tuition increases; funding rationales The re-structuring of U.S. higher education over the last forty years is one of the more visible signs of what Nancy Fraser (and many other feminist writers1) have called “the crisis of care” that has characterized the history of the capitalist world-system since the Anthropocene began during the early stages of the Industrial Revolution. In simple terms, it means that concern for profit and markets have counted for more than care for our social bonds and common good. Or, as Fraser argues, the crucial contradiction is between economic production and social reproduction. The former depends upon the latter, but it tends to conceal that dependency. In Fraser’s terms, “the capitalist economy relies on—one might say, free rides on—activities of provisioning, caregiving and interaction that produce and maintain social bonds, although it accords them no monetized value and treats them as if they were free.” (Fraser 2016, p. 101). These formulations seem to contradict the sense of “social reproduction” that Marx first formulated as a name for the reproduction of socio-economic inequalities. In the late 20th-century, Pierre Bourdieu refined the dynamics of social reproduction in such books as Distinction (Bourdieu 1984) where he detailed through his empirical research the connections between what he called “symbolic capital” and the forms of “symbolic violence” that reproduce social inequality2. But some feminist theorists have offered a richly qualified analysis of the contradictions that inhere in the processes of social reproduction. In their eyes, the concept of social reproduction has been developed too exclusively in the masculinist discourse guided by the hermeneutics of suspicion whereby social reproduction always refers to the negative reproduction of unjust hierarchies such as the “separate spheres” of women’s work within the home and men’s labor outside. Those feminists committed to the dialectics between negative critique and positive forms of reparative criticism,3 have argued, in contrast, that there are significant, necessary and positive dimensions to some of the basic processes of human reproduction, even though they have too often been cordoned off to the domestic sphere as women’s unpaid labor. In these activities, human beings need non-violent, non-sexist and non-exploitive forms of caregiving. In short, you cannot just eliminate all forms of social reproduction and expect human beings to survive.

The alternative is to reject the affirmative’s gendered enframing of the world that embraces a feminist pedagogy—simply the process of critique removes the ideological blinders inherent in policy-making-~--the permutation is doomed to failure b/c the starting point of the 1AC was profoundly militarized Shepherd 8 Laura J. Shepherd, Department of Political Science and International Studies, University of Birmingham, “Gender, Violence and Global Politics: Contemporary Debates in Feminist Security Studies,” EBSCOAs discussed above, ideas about masculinity and femininity, dignity and sacrifice may not only be violent in themselves, but are also the product/productive of physical violences. With this in mind, the feminist argument that 'peacetime' is analytically misleading is a valid one. Of interest are the 'in-between days' and the ways in which labelling periods of war or peace as such can divert attention away from the myriad violences that inform and reinforce social behaviour. War can surely never be said to start and end at a clearly defined moment. Rather, it seems part of a continuum of conflict, expressed now in armed force, now in economic sanctions or political pressure. A time of supposed peace may come later to be called 'the pre-war period'. During the fighting of a war, unseen by the foot soldiers under fire, peace processes are often already at work. A time of postwar reconstruction, later, may be re-designated as an inter bellum– a mere pause between wars (Cockburn and Zarkov, cited in El Jack, 2003, p. 9). Feminist security studies interrogates the pauses between wars, and the political processes – and practices of power – that demarcate times as such. In doing so, not only is the remit of recognisable violence (violence worthy of study) expanded, but so too are the parameters of what counts as IR. Everyday violences and acts of everyday resistance ('a fashion show, a tour, a small display of children's books' in Enloe, 2007, pp. 117–20) are the stuff of relations international and, thus, of a comprehensive understanding of security. In the following section I outline the ways in which taking these claims seriously allows us to engage critically with the representations of international relations that inform our research, with potentially profound implications. As well as conceiving of gender as a set of discourses, and violence as a means of reproducing and reinforcing the relevant discursive limits, it is possible to see security as a set of discourses, as I have argued more fully elsewhere (Shepherd, 2007; 2008; see also Shepherd and Weldes, 2007). Rather than pursuing the study of security as if it were something that can be achieved either in absolute, partial or relative terms, engaging with security as discourse enables the analysis of how these discourses function to reproduce, through various strategies, the domain of the international with which IR is self-consciously concerned. Just as violences that are gendering reproduce gendered subjects, on this view states, acting as authoritative entities, perform violences, but violences, in the name of security, also perform states. These processes occur simultaneously, and across the whole spectrum of social life: an instance of rape in war is at once gendering of the individuals involved and of the social collectivities – states, communities, regions – they feel they represent (see Bracewell, 2000); building a fence in the name of security that separates people from their land and extended families performs particular kinds of violence (at checkpoints, during patrols) and performs particular subject identities (of the state authority, of the individuals affected), all of which are gendered. All of the texts under discussion in this essay argue that it is imperative to explore and expose gendered power relations and, further, that doing so not only enables a rigorous critique of realism in IR but also reminds us as scholars of the need for such a critique. The critiques of IR offered by feminist scholars are grounded in a rejection of neo-realism/realism as a dominant intellectual framework for academics in the discipline and policy makers alike. As Enloe reminds us, 'the government-centred, militarized version of national security derived from a realist framework remains the dominant mode of policy thinking' (Enloe, 2007, p. 43). Situating gender as a central category of analysis encourages us to 'think outside the "state security box"' (p. 47) and to remember that 'the "individuals" of global politics do not work alone, live alone or politic alone – they do so in interdependent relationships with others' (Sjoberg and Gentry, 2008, p. 200) that are inherently gendered. One of the key analytical contributions of all three texts is the way in which they all challenge what it means to be 'doing' IR, by recognising various forms of violence, interrogating the public/private divide and demanding that attention is paid to the temporal and physical spaces in-between war and peace. Feminist security studies should not simply be seen as 'women doing security', or as 'adding women to IR/security studies', important as these contributions are. Through their theorising, the authors discussed here reconfigure what 'counts' as IR, challenging orthodox notions of who can 'do' IR and what 'doing' IR means. The practices of power needed to maintain dominant configurations of international relations are exposed, and critiquing the productive power of realism as a discourse is one way in which the authors do this. Sjoberg and Gentry pick up on a recent theoretical shift in Anglo-American IR, from system-level analysis to a recognition that individuals matter. However, as they rightly point out, the individuals who are seen to matter are not gendered relational beings, but rather reminiscent of Hobbes' construction of the autonomous rational actor. 'The narrowness of the group that such an approach includes limits its effectiveness as an interpretive framework and reproduces the gender, class and race biases in system-level international relationship scholarship' (Sjoberg and Gentry 2008, p. 200, emphasis added). Without paying adequate attention to the construction of individuals as gendered beings, or to the reproduction of widely held ideas about masculine and feminine behaviours, Sjoberg and Gentry remind us that we will ultimately fail 'to see and deconstruct the increasingly subtle, complex and disguised ways in which gender pervades international relations and global politics' (2008, p. 225). In a similar vein, Roberts notes that 'human security is marginalised or rejected as inauthentic because it is not a reflection of realism's (male) agendas and priorities' (2008, p. 169). The 'agendas and priorities' identified by Roberts and acknowledged by Sjoberg and Gentry as being productive of particular biases in scholarship are not simply 'academic' matters, in the pejorative sense of the term. As Roberts argues, 'Power relationships of inequality happen because they are built that way by human determinism of security and what is required to maintain security (p. 171). Realism, as academic discourse and as policy guideline, has material effects. Although his analysis employs an unconventional definition of the term 'social construction' (seemingly interchangeable with 'human agency') and rests on a novel interpretation of the three foundational assumptions of realism (Roberts, 2008, pp. 169–77), the central point that Roberts seeks to make in his conclusion is valid: 'it is a challenge to those who deny relationships between gender and security; between human agency (social construction) and lethal outcome' (p. 183). In sum, all three texts draw their readers to an inescapable, and – for the conventional study of IR – a devastating conclusion: the dominance of neo-realism/realism and the state-based study of security that derives from this is potentially pathological, in that it is in part productive of the violences it seeks to ameliorate. I suggest that critical engagement with orthodox IR theory is necessary for the intellectual growth of the discipline, and considerable insight can be gained by acknowledging the relevance of feminist understandings of gender, power and theory. The young woman buying a T-shirt from a multinational clothing corporation with her first pay cheque, the group of young men planning a stag weekend in Amsterdam, a group of students attending a demonstration against the bombing of Afghanistan – studying these significant actions currently falls outside the boundaries of doing security studies in mainstream IR and I believe these boundaries need contesting. As Marysia Zalewski argues: International politics is what we make it to be ... We need to rethink the discipline in ways that will disturb the existing boundaries of both that which we claim to be relevant in international politics and what we assume to be legitimate ways of constructing knowledge about the world (Zalewski 1996, p. 352, emphasis in original).

The ROB is to endorse the debater who best challenges masculine neolib politics. Debate education begins with gender violence. An informal, community based, feminist understanding of education counteracts traditional masculine education systems which marginalize feminine voices – this community education bridges the gap between ivory tower feminism and grass roots feminist activismAitken, 2017 Mel- Child and Family worker at Barnardo’s Edinburgh Community Support Service, “Feminism: A Fourth to be Reckoned With? Reviving Community Education Feminist Pedagogies in a Digital Age”, Concept The Journal of Contemporary Community Education Practice Theory Vol. 8 No. 1, Spring 2017, http://concept.lib.ed.ac.uk/Concept/article/view/328, punjFeminist pedagogy in practice Community Education as a practice is legitimised by values of equality, empowerment and social action and, as a result, fits seamlessly with a feminist understanding (Tett, 2010). The natural nexus between feminism and educational practice has been theorised for decades, with feminist practitioners advocating empowerment and consciousness-raising for women in traditional and non-traditional learning environments (Thompson, 1983). This distinct practice is described as a ‘feminist pedagogy’ and has been understood as a somewhat ‘subversive activity’ opposing long established educational methods with counter-hegemonic aims (Bezucha, 1985 p82). Its antecedents can be traced to Women’s Studies courses in American colleges and universities in the 70s and 80s, and was a response to the ways in which male-dominated educational institutions were structurally designed to neglect and subjugate women’s voices (Barr, 1999). The site of feminist pedagogies in elitist academia proves to be its greatest hindrance (Fisher, 1981), reinforcing for some the dominant notion that feminism is a closed book to those who, due to class, ethnicity or disability, may not access such privileged circles (Bryson, 1992). However, I would argue that there is still a place for feminist pedagogies and the ideology by which they are constructed. The gap between the academic ‘ivory tower’ feminists and grass-roots feminist activists could be narrowed by the role of the committed community educator dedicated to meaningful education in informal settings. But what scope is there for practitioners to employ such techniques.

11/17/18

SO Cap K

Tournament: Grapevine | Round: 5 | Opponent: any | Judge: anyThe judge should be a critical intellectual evaluating the knowledge claims of the 1AC – if we win the epistemological foundations of the aff are suspect we should win irrespective of hypothetical enactment First, neoliberalism operates through a narrow vision of politics that sustains itself through the illusion of pragmatism. We should refuse their demand for a plan. Blalock, JD, 15 (Corinne, “NEOLIBERALISM AND THE CRISIS OF LEGAL THEORY”, Duke University, LAW AND CONTEMPORARY PROBLEMS Vol. 77:71) MG from fileRECOVERING LEGAL THEORY’S RELEVANCE? The lens of neoliberalism … there is no alternative.

Trump victory proves challenging neolib within educational spaces is key. Giroux, 5 How to cite: Giroux, Henry A. (2017), “The Scourge of Illiteracy in Authoritarian Times,” Contemporary Readings in Law and Social Justice 9(1): 14–27.ABSTRACT. This article argues that … that bear down on their lives

The ROB is to challenge modern neoliberal politics in educational spaces.Resisting structural neolib has to come first in debate—inequalities prevent groups from accessing the debate sphere - evaluate this firsts its specific to the better debating.Wise 08(Tim Wise, Race Relations Specialist, Activst, Orator, White Like Me, 2008 96 – 97)Until the voices of economically and … powerful ignore them every day anyway.

Turn outweighs the link – every example of successful confidential sourcing is outweighed by overall manipulation of the military industrial complexBratich, 2007 http://journals.sagepub.com.proxy.wm.edu/doi/pdf/10.1177/1532708606295648, Cultural Studies ↔ Critical Methodologies, Volume 7 Number 2, 2007, A Summer of Double Super Secrecy: Public Secret Spheres, Evidence, and Cultural Strategies, Jack Z. Bratich Rutgers University,118-131 DOI: 10.1177/1532708606295648Mute Deep Throats and Public Secret MenAs part of special prosecutor Patrick Alexander’s investigation into the PlameGame, New York Times reporter Judith Miller was jailed for not revealing thesource(s) of the leak. Mysteriously, Miller did not write a word about this story,whereas journalist Robert Novak, who broke the story, was not indicted, for reasonshe enigmatically dodges.Miller became a media-darling …with his enigmatic evasion of responsibility,is just as much a secret man as Karl Rove.

Capitalism perpetuates all other forms of oppression – we control the direction of their impacts.Bennett 12. Sara Bennett. Socialist Review is a monthly magazine covering current events, theory and history, books and arts reviews from a revolutionary socialist perspective. It is the sister publication of Socialist Worker. , May 2012, "Marxism and oppression," Socialist Review, http://socialistreview.org.uk/369/marxism-and-oppressionRSMarx recognised that oppression, … place more women at the risk of violence.

Alternative is to support other nontraditional form of media. And, true resistance must embrace subversion, criminality and resistance outside of traditional reporting – hacktivism and reporters are too easily bought off because they don’t control the means of productionFriesen et al. 12 – Dr. Norm Friesen is Canada Research Chair in E-Learning Practices at Thompson Rivers University. His academic credentials include a PhD in Education from the University of Alberta. Andrew Feenberg, School of Communication, Simon Fraser University. Grace Smith, Arapiki Solutions, Inc. (Norm Friesen, Andrew Feenberg, Grace Smith, and Shannon Lowe, 2012, “Experiencing Surveillance”, pp. 82-83, (Re)Inventing The Internet, http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.10072F978-94-6091-734-9_4 SM)Yar calls for a recognition …surveillance and the control it represents can be undermined and resisted

9/8/18

SO Psychoanalysis K

Tournament: Greenhill | Round: 2 | Opponent: Holy Cross BG | Judge: Scott PhillipsNC R2 Greenhill1Curtailing governmental surveillance normalizes its existence and masks our enjoyment at being surveilled – “public debate” and “civic engagement” only intensify surveillance’s holdSmecker 13 (Frank, Frank Smecker is an American philosopher and social theorist. He studied English Philosophy and Psychology at University of Vermont and is currently studying philosophy at Duquesne University, “1984.0: The Rise of the big Other as Big Brother”, truth-out, http://goo.gl/GBWI1I)Remember some years back, when the lid was blown regarding the US' use of torture to gather information from "terrorists?" Many were - rightly - shocked and dismayed; people from virtually all over the world chided the US for its disgraceful disregard for ethical standards. The ACLU condemned the behavior, journalists from all walks of political life expressed their criticism, and so on and so forth. For a while, America's use of torture, or rather, "enhanced interrogation techniques," was met with heated vitriol, brought into the public arena for passionate debate. But something strange resulted from all of that: talking about it publicly, in a way, normalized it, and lowered our ethical standards. Today, the topic of torture for interrogation purposes is disapprovingly met with: "Well...that's what America does." And that's my concern with the recent surveillance scandal; that, in a sort of nefariously though "unwittingly tactful" way, by blowing this scandal wide open and bringing it into public discourse, sooner than later, spying on innocent civilians is just "what America does." That said, I wasn't surprised in the least when I read Glenn Greenwald's piece for The Guardian, that Verizon is obediently handing over its customer phone records to the National Security Agency (NSA) in compliance with government orders. Nor was I surprised to hear that a myriad of other private companies - Google, Microsoft, Apple, Yahoo!, ATandT, Sprint, Facebook, etc. - has given in to the same pressure. After all, today's overzealous trend of domestic communications dragnets is, in part, merely the logical though odious result of things like the USA PATRIOT ACT, the Protect America Act, the NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act), and their ilk, something that many anticipated from the first phase of the War on Terror. But when I heard that Verizon's stock rose more than 3 percent on Thursday 6 June, my immediate reaction was: "My god, you gotta be kidding me...this is absurd." Perhaps, then, the normalization of domestic spying is already underway. Virtually the entire nation is under surveillance. Phone records, emails, documents, photographs, connection logs, audio and video chats and more are being handed over without reluctance to the NSA, the data scraped and archived. Why? So that this information can be accessed at any time, for reasons not entirely clear. OK, ostensibly it's a safeguard against terrorism. But these days everybody and their political representative appear to have their own respective fetishes for what qualifies as an act of "terrorism"... and so the gamut of reasons behind this surveillance monstrosity, at least those that have been disclosed to the public, ends up serving to maintain its ambiguous, secretive impression. In any event, now that the cat's out of the bag, it seems most people aren't too outraged over this domestic spying business - to wit: Verizon's stock is going up despite their complicit role in all this (people are continuing to buy their products and services). And many of those who do appear to be bothered nonetheless launch their invectives in the form of pithy cynical quips posted from their Facebook and/or Twitter accounts - their incessant lamentation is, by these lights, feeding the very source of their lamentation. The German philosopher G.W.F. Hegel coined a term for such individuals - "Beautiful Soul": that specific "I-told-you-so!" individual who, by incessantly complaining about this whole debacle, is actually contributing, in a way, to the preservation of this despicable situation - for, first of all, the Big Culprit against which the Beautiful Soul takes issue is none other than the external point of reference by which this dissenting character acquires his or her "dissident" personality; and second of all, if you're using Facebook to express your contempt for being spied on, at least try to be a little more consistent. If you signed up for Facebook, you are, in some form or another, being watched. That's the point of the damn thing: to be seen. Don't pretend like you don't enjoy it, even if your enjoyment appears in the form of angst. In other words, people may be angry over being spied on, but not so much with Verizon, not with Facebook, nor with Sprint. Not with any of the private companies involved. Everybody seems upset primarily with The Government. Thus in the wake of being spied on, Americans show resolute loyalty to the very companies that collude with the federal programs doing the spying. It's as if the idea of boycotting these companies and their products and services, is, for the vast majority of the US, more deranging than the fact that hundreds of millions of lives, perhaps yours and mine even, are being tracked day in day out. The point I'm alluding to here is this: a classic example of abuse of power is to present its victims with a series of false choices whereby no matter which choice the victim makes, those in power win: do you want security or do you want privacy? Do you really want to trust the government, or do you want to trust the private sector that provides you with a false sense of security through things like smartphones, Internet access, social media, and so on? One has to wonder then, if pooled distrust is being directed toward Big Government, does this sentiment of suspicion merely act as a catalyst for consolidating more power in the sphere of Big Business? If so, we end up with the following logical absurdity: the more surveillance, the more "privacy." More correctly, that is to say: the more security we want, the less privacy we'll have, and the stronger the private sector will become. And that's why the more I think about this situation and its seemingly irrational, stupid-as-shit absurdity (that, by dint of purchasing things like smartphones and dicking around on Facebook - in the face of being spied on through these very things - people are thereby giving their (unwitting) consent to being spied on by some sort of "Big Brother" agency), the more I realize that there is something rather philosophical in nature going on here. Perhaps this situation has less to do with some secretive "Big Brother" entity tracking peoples' everyday behavior. Rather, what if this situation is exactly how it appears to be? What if this situation is essentially an ideological problem - having everything to do with us, the body politic, and, our immensely complex relation to the very "locus of power" that gives substance to the body politic? What if, and I don't intend to sound cynical but rather skeptical here, this surveillance scandal is the logical, though odious, result of America's desire for security? In the old days, before the advent of post-Grecian democracy, when civil society was presided over by a monarch, the monarch was, as director of the Center for the Study of Psychoanalysis and Culture at SUNY Buffalo, Joan Copjec, puts it: someone everyone - or everyone who counted - was encouraged to 'emulate,' the king was merely the retroactive effect of the general will-of-the-people. The place of this leader was thus a point of convergence, a point where the full sense of this unified will was located. 1 Obviously, these days there is no king. But as French philosopher Claude Lefort explained, the locus of power that was once embodied by a legitimate pretender - the monarch - has, upon the advent of modern democracy, become an empty place... Now that the "throne is empty," so to speak, and modern democracy (an "indetermination that was born from the loss of the substance of the body politic"2) has usurped its place, modern power, to paraphrase Foucault, is wielded by no one in particular, though we are all subject to it. In order to grasp what I'm getting at here, it's important to familiarize oneself for the time being with two theoretical terms: the "big Other" and "gaze." The latter often lends itself to a multitude of theoretical interpretations, each one replete with its own definition and conceptualization of functioning. To preempt against too much confusion, however, we'll focus on the gaze as discussed hereunder. To start, the twentieth century psychoanalyst Badass, Jacques Lacan, gave an account of the gaze with the following story he borrowed from Sartre: The gaze that I encounter ... is not a seen gaze not a set of eyes that I see looking at me but a gaze imagined by me in the field of the Other ... the sound of rustling leaves heard while out hunting ... a footstep heard in a corridor The gaze exists not at the level of a particular other whose gaze surprises the subject looking through the keyhole. It is that the other surprises him, the subject, as an entirely hidden gaze. 3 And then there is what Slovenian philosopher and cultural critic, Slavoj Žižek, calls the "impossible gaze": that uncanny perspective by means of which we are already present at the scene of our own absence. What this means is that, any good ol' fantasy functions properly only by "removing" ourselves from the fantasy we are having. Take as an example Disney's Wall-E, the story of a convivial little robot that looks like an anthropomorphized Mars rover, that "falls in love" with Eva, a robot that basically looks like an egg. Essentially, this is a fantasy of a post-human earth - though of course dreamed up by someone (human) and, definitely watched by a whole bunch of (human) people. Hence the perspective in which "I am present at the very scene of my own absence" - the human viewer reduced to the "impossible" gaze - as if I'm not a part of the very "reality" I'm observing. This is, in a nutshell, the definition of gaze. The big Other, on the other hand, is a bit more involved. Its definition is inherently nuanced. To start off, what we'll call the Symbolic big Other is something that is shared by everyone. It is none other than that which embodies the very ideological essence of the socio-symbolic order of our lives; rules and etiquette - especially juridical Law itself - customs and beliefs, everything you should or should not do, what you aspire toward, and who or what you aspire to be, all of this and more, individually or in combination, constitutes the Symbolic big Other. The subject's big Other (hereafter, the Imaginary big Other), however, is a sort of private investment in the Symbolic big Other, a personal allegiance to the ruling ideology which sustains the narratives, beliefs, and lived fantasies of the very culture in which the subject is immersed. Each Imaginary big Other is distinct in its own unique way: my Imaginary big Other may be, say, a patriotic bricolage (not really, but you get the point) - a composite of things like, e.g., Uncle Sam, the American soldier trope, "God" and Tim Tebow. And your Imaginary big Other may embody, say, just Emily Post, or maybe some vague ideological package of some other normative principles. In any case, the Imaginary big Other, the subject's big Other as such, designates a private virtualization of the socio-symbolic field in which he or she is inscribed. Whether it exists in one's private notion of God, or one's notion of government, or family, or "what's cool," or a combination of these things or whatever, the Imaginary big Other refers directly to that distinctly personalized social standard by which each of us respectively measures ourselves - 24/7/365 (yes, the big Other can make itself known even in our dreams). Virtually everybody shares in the Symbolic big Other, for it's that very point from which the general "will-of-the-people" is reflected back to the people, so that we can see ourselves as we appear in this reflection - as a consistent social "whole." In other words, the big Other is that which gives substance to the body politic. We are its subjects. And despite not really existing - that, at the imaginative level of the individual, it's really none other than one's own internalization of society's dos-and-don'ts - the big Other is nonetheless experienced as a sort of independent phantasm which situates itself smack dab in the middle of any social interaction like some kind of incorporeal incarnation of a necessary third-wheel that both instructs and scrutinizes our every thought, utterance, and move. As such, the big Other ensures that the rules of society are being followed, that we are conducting ourselves properly in society. Without the big Other the social fabric begins to fray, presenting the veritable threat of losing the constitutive substance of society itself, its governing laws, and its subjects. I suppose I should've been a little clearer earlier on: when we combine the Symbolic big Other and gaze, the result is the Imaginary big Other, the subject's big Other - that remote sense of being watched and evaluated by something that's not really there. It's sort of like a cross between a Jiminy Cricket figure of conscience and an iconic role-model of sorts, who, as such, seems to loom over your shoulder, telling you what and what not to do simply by "looking" at you, normatively shaping and informing your every thought and behavior. We all have a big Other. It is, to repeat an emphasis from earlier, that standard by which we measure ourselves: our own private piece of the larger, public social space we inhabit. To paraphrase Žižek, the gaze of the Symbolic big Other is my own view of myself, which I see through eyes that are not authentically my own. Here, one should not fail to notice the Symbolic big Other's striking resemblance to Bentham's "Panopticon," that omnipresent, omniscient "God's-eye-view" intended to watch over us wherever we go. The likeness is unmistakable, simply because Bentham's little wet dream embodies the big Other as such. The essential point to take away from this is that one's sense of (political) "self" is inevitably bound up with the localization of the panoptic gaze - that centralized point of omnipresent, omniscient surveillance. Wherever we go, our image of self, as seen by the gaze of the big Other, always functions for another. And further, in these times, do we not receive constant arousal, enjoyment, from the act of watching our own image of self, controlling our own image of self, tracking our own image of self? Though it's not: as if we were the Panopticon itself, but rather: because we are the Panopticon itself. We bring the Panopticon, the gaze of the Symbolic big Other as such, with us wherever we go. Social networking sites such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc., instantiate this. But what, precisely, does this even mean? Well, this is where things get both revelatory and a bit complicated. The trouble with all this is that, to return to Copjec's analysis, the Symbolic big Other is "a point of convergence of the general will-of-the-people." What this means - and bear with me here, because this may turn confusing - is that the Symbolic big Other, as such, signifies the very mode of appearance in which we appear to ourselves, for ourselves, as we desire to appear as such. So it would follow that, if we appear to ourselves, for ourselves, as images to be controlled, manipulated, tracked, watched, and so on, as we certainly do in today's digital medium of social networking - which, by the way, we collectively, willfully and, pleasurably participate in - then this zeitgeist of the modern majority will inevitably converge at a centralized point: which is to say, the big Other, both its Symbolic and Imaginary incarnations, will appear in the guise of "Big Brother." At the individual level, each of us embodies "Big Brother": we are intrigued with the act of watching, tracking, manipulating, images of ourselves. At the Symbolic level, the truth of this enjoyment expresses itself today in all of its unsettling perversity: PRISM. But we shouldn't stop there. There are still a few more complications that need clarification. The essential problem we face today is this: The Symbolic big Other - as an anchoring point, as something that serves to guarantee fixed meaning to our lived social experiences, offering a sense of wholeness and closure to the social order in which we dwell - has dissolved into something ambiguous, formless, a "part of no part." The religious idea of God no longer works for most people at the social level; there is no longer one "ruler," no potentate around whom our lives circulate and from whom the body politic receives its substance. Even the idea of the nation state as a sovereign entity has become near obsolete in the wake of the "global village." In today's historical epoch, the Symbolic big Other designates not a positivized entity around which society is structured, from which the body politic receives its substance; on the contrary, today's Symbolic big Other designates a radical indeterminateness, which is to say: With modern democracy, there is no substantial big Other, no real agent with a legitimate claim to the "throne of power." The inevitable result of modern democracy is that nothing substantial assumes the seat of power that was once occupied by a substantial big Other. And there's the rub. Today's legitimate pretender to the throne of power is a "no-One" - that's the whole point of democracy, that no single individual can claim this seat of power, which in effect renders this seat of power an empty place as such: a neutral frame that engenders political gridlock and which lacks any guarantee of real security. And so in a democratic state, the one sure thing that the body politic will desire the most is security. Let's hold that thought, and jump tracks again for a moment. What ends up ensuring the substance of the body politic in these times is the body politic itself. And this is a problem. In Žižek's remarkable read, For They Know Not What They Do: Enjoyment as a Political Factor, he explains that the fact that "the Throne is empty" ... is now the only "normal" state. In pre-democratic societies, there is always a legitimate pretender to the place of Power ... Within the democratic horizon, everyone who occupies the locus of Power is by definition a usurper. 4 This means that, what is permitted in the democratic horizon is only a temporary exertion of power by the political subject, strictly by means of electoral activity: as Žižek puts is, "we are constantly aware of the distance separating the locus of Power as such from those exerting Power at a given moment." 5 To put it quite simply, democracy safeguards this empty place of power, keeping it from ever being occupied by an absolute ruler. Sounds great, right? But if we pervert this perspective, that is, turn this perspective around on itself - is this not also the most Machiavellian way to ensure an unconditional occupation of the throne of power? And that is the totalitarian distortion inherent to democracy itself, the very source from which a surveillance state arises in the midst of a democratic state.

Link- surveillance. The target of journalism is viewers and support – surveillance surveillance

Ideological transgression is a continuation of the existing order—the power of the protest structurally depends upon the continued authority of the system. The affirmative functions as a carnivalesque reversal of authority—we make a gesture of non-compliance that posits us as the “real” masters of fateZizek 95 Slavoj, International Director of the Birkbeck Institute for the Humanities, president of the Society for Theoretical Psychoanalysis, LAW AND THE POSTMODERN MIND: SUPEREGO BY DEFAULT, Cardozo Law Review, 1995, 16 Cardozo L. Rev. 925

In the traditional patriarchal society, the inherent transgression of the law assumes the form of a carnivalesque reversal of authority: the king becomes a beggar, madness poses as wisdom, etc. A custom practiced in the villages of northern Greece until the middle of our century exemplifies this reversal. n5 One day a year was set aside for women to take over. Men had to stay at home and look after children while women gathered in the local inn, drank to excess, and organized mock trials of men. What breaks out in this carnevalesque suspension of the ruling patriarchal law is the fantasy of feminine power. Lacan draws attention to the fact that, in everyday French, one of the designations for the wife is la bourgeoise n6 - the one who, beneath the semblance of male domination, actually pulls the strings. This, however, can in no way be reduced to a version of the standard male chauvinist wisecrack that patriarchal domination is not so bad for women after all since, at least in the close circle of the family, they run the show. The problem runs deeper; one of the consequences of the fact that the master is always an impostor is the duplication of the master - the agency of the master is always perceived as a semblance concealing another, "true" master. Suffice it to recall the well-known anecdote quoted by Theodore Adorno in Minima Moralia, about a wife who apparently subordinates to her husband and, when they are about to leave the party, obediently holds his coat, all the while exchanging behind his back ironic patronizing glances with the fellow guests to communicate the message, "poor weakling, let him think he is the master!" In this opposition of semblance and actual power men are impostors, condemned to performing empty symbolic gestures while the actual responsibility falls to women. However, the point not to be missed here is that this specter of woman's power structurally depends on the male domination: it remains its shadowy double, its retroactive effect, and as such its inherent moment. For that reason, bringing the woman's shadowy power to light and acknowledging it publicly enables law to cast off its direct patriarchal dress and present itself as neutral egalitarian. The character of its obscene double also undergoes a radical shift: what now erupts in the carnivalesque suspension of the "egalitarian" public law is precisely the authoritarian-patriarchal logic that continues to determine our attitudes, although its direct public expression is no longer permitted. "Carnival" thus becomes the outlet for the repressed dark side of social jouissance: Jew-baiting riots, gang rapes, lynchings, etc. Insofar as the superego designates the intrusion of enjoyment into the field of ideology, we can also say that the opposition of symbolic law and superego points towards the tension between ideological meaning and enjoyment: symbolic law guarantees meaning, whereas superego provides enjoyment which serves as the unacknowledged support of meaning. Today, in the so-called postideological era, it is crucial to avoid confounding fantasy that supports an ideological edifice with ideological meaning - how can we otherwise account for the paradoxical alliance of post-Communism and Fascist nationalism such as that between Russia and Serbia? At the level of meaning, their relationship is that of mutual exclusion; yet they share a common phantasmatic support (when Communism was the discourse of power, it played deftly with nationalist fantasies - from Stalin to Ceausescu). Consequently, there is also no incompatibility between the postmodern cynical attitude of nonidentification - of distance towards every ideology - and the nationalist obsession with the ethnic thing. The thing is the substance of enjoyment: the cynic is a person who believes only in enjoyment - and is not the cynic the clearest example of one obsessed precisely with the national thing?

Confidential sources shatter the trust that binds large group identity together –builds anxiety at psychoanalytic level and a crisis in knowing

Because the confidential sources threaten large group identity, the state doesn’t change- to deal with the confidential source, the state bunkers their identity down and in a paranoid moment lashes out against the journalist. Rather than a moment of transparency, it ignites anxiety and fear of large group identity which causes lashout. This answers back against your deliberation arguments and shows how you reinforce the masculine state

The ROJ is to adopt the role of the psychoanalyst in educational spaces.Vote negative to affirm our analysis of the 1AC. Our attempts to force the affirmative to encounter their antagonism within the real is the pre-requisite for the formulation of an effective political subject. Refuse the easy answers and instead embrace a critical interrogation of our psychological underpinnings.Wells 14 (Charles, Assistant Professor of Contemporary Studies at Wilfrid Laurier University, “The Subject of Liberation: Zizek, Politics, Psychoanalysis”, Bloomsbury, 2014, pages 134-136)ACWhat role does the discourse of the analyst play in this context? As I mentioned earlier, it is tempting to begin from the assumption that the discourse of the analyst directly is the correct way to relate to antagonism in the Real, and that there must therefore be a correct form of leftist philosophy that corresponds to it. Indeed, Žižek seems to support this hypothesis: ‘The analyst’s discourse’, he writes, ‘stands for the emergence of revolutionary-emancipatory subjectivity that reconciles the split into university and hysteria.’10 However, while I will to a certain extent play out this temptation later, using the term ‘philosophy of the analyst’ as a place-holder for the post-analytic, liberated perspective, things are clearly not so simple. On the one hand, as I have emphasized repeatedly, there is no correct character structure waiting to be associated with the discourse of the analyst, suggesting that there is no philosophy of the analyst waiting to be discovered. On the other hand, psychoanalysis is a clinical practice that aims to produce a subjective change in an Other, the analysand. If the discourse of the analyst is the form of address used by the analyst in psychoanalytic practice, then it is not necessarily in itself the correct way to relate to antagonism in the Real. Rather, it is a technique that induces the Other (the analysand) to adopt the correct way of relating to antagonism in the Real. Thus, while I will in part pursue the tempting question ‘How does the philosophy of the analyst differ from the philosophies of perversion and hysteria?’ the correct question lurking in the background is actually, ‘How does the discourse of the analyst induce the philosophies of perversion and hysteria to correct themselves?’ How does the philosophy of the analyst relate to the philosophy of hysteria? As already mentioned, the analyst, like the hysteric, insists on the continual presence of antagonism in the Real, but, unlike the hysteric who is stuck in perpetual failure, the analyst insists on the productive nature of the act of defining as such, the repetitive encircling and marking of the antagonism. What is this failure in the context of the philosophy of hysteria? If, for the discourse of the hysteric, it is the failure to find a consistent definition for the antagonism, to find a truly adequate master, then for the philosophy of hysteria it is the failure of the Enlightenment project to construct a truly adequate universal theory of ontology, ethics and subjectivity. It is the failure of traditional Marxism to discover a correct struggle (class struggle) and/or a correct revolutionary actor who could win this struggle once and for all. What, then, is the productivity asserted by the analyst in the place of this failure? The analyst confronts his or her Other with the very choice of how to choose. The ultimate failure of every act of naming to adequately define Real antagonism is the obverse of the fact that every act of naming is a decision in a radical sense. The very existence of antagonism in the Real, outside of (between, even within) every subject, necessarily means that there is no adequate answer to the hysteric’s question. The only way to establish political efficiency is to make a decision, a choice, a leap of faith, which inadequately bridges the gap. The analyst is thus one who acknowledges the hysteric’s criticism of the master (‘Yes, the master’s gesture is ultimately nothing more than a tautological decision’), but who simultaneously confronts the hysteric with the conclusion that he or she must therefore ‘make up the difference’, must decide for him- or herself how to decide (‘…but this only means that you will have to make your own decision, to fail in your own way’). Like the discourse of the hysteric and the discourse of the master, the discourse of the analyst thus accepts the existence of the antagonism as such. However, it does not (like the discourse of the master) assert a particular perspective on the antagonism as that which all the Others should adopt, neither does it (like the discourse of the hysteric) search for an (impossible) adequate master or objectively true perspective outside of itself. It merely insists on the necessity that every subject make his or her own choice, be his or her own master. This is precisely how Žižek reads The formal-tautological-empty character of the Kantian categorical imperative: Hegel’s criticism is that Kant’s categorical imperative, because of its formal character, cannot generate any determinate content – it can justify everything and/or nothing as an ethical act. It is easy to demonstrate not only that Kant is well aware of the formal character of the imperative, but also that this formal character is the central part of his argument: Kant does not strive to show how we can derive our determinate moral duties directly from the categorical imperative; his point, rather, is that the formal emptiness of the categorical imperative confronts us with the abyss void of our freedom – this emptiness means that the free subject is fully responsible not only for doing his duty, but also for establishing what this duty is.11 In a way, the discourse of the analyst thus accepts the Enlightenment notion that there is a universal structure of human subjectivity and of reality as such, and accepts the traditional Marxist notion that there is one key struggle and a privileged actor who is charged with resolving it, but it does so only in a negative way. That is to say, for this philosophy there is one key struggle, but this one key struggle is precisely the irresolvable struggle over what the one key struggle is. There is one privileged actor who is charged with resolving this struggle, but this one privileged actor is the universal subject itself, residing within every individual. And, finally, there is a universal structure of subjectivity and reality as such, but this universal structure is precisely that of being open, without any guarantee, requiring a decision.

9/15/18

TheoryT Interps

Interpretation: the affirmative must defend the implementation of a policy with an actor or set of actors in a plan text in the 1AC. They must defend solvency and a framework under which solvency is relevant. The affirmative cannot defend a truth testing aff where they defend the general principle of the resolution, or that the topic should be discussed from an interrogation level.

Resolved implies a policy Louisiana House 3-8-2005, http://house.louisiana.gov/house-glossary.htmResolution A legislative instrument that generally is used for making declarations, stating policies, and making decisions where some other form is not required. A bill includes the constitutionally required enacting clause; a resolution uses the term "resolved". Not subject to a time limit for introduction nor to governor's veto. ( Const. Art. III, §17(B) and House Rules 8.11 , 13.1 , 6.8 , and 7.4)

Ought = state of affairs since it is a non agential statement.Stephen Finlay and Justin Snedegar No Date University of Southern California “One Ought Too Many”!http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~js280/Finlay20and20Snedegar-One20Ought20too20Many-final.pdf‘Ought’ sentences seem ambiguous in a variety of ways. We can distinguish normative readings from epistemic readings, moral from prudential readings, and more. Not all of these differences present a challenge for the Uniformity Thesis, as we’ll explain. The challenge is motivated by one difference in particular, which can be observed between paradigmatic examples of nonagential sentences, like (1) It ought to be that every election is free and fair. (2) It ought to be that Larry wins the lottery. and of agential sentences, like (3) Bill ought to kiss Lucy. (4) Vince ought to stop driving drunk. The nonagential sentences (1) and (2) say that certain states of affairs ought to be the case (the “ought-to-be”). Here ‘ought’ is commonly glossed as meaning it is best that…,4 so we can call these readings evaluative. 5 From some state of affairs being best nothing directly follows about how any agent has most reason to act, and so these sentences seem to have at most an indirect bearing on agents’ deliberations. Sentence (2) entails neither that somebody has most reason to rig the lottery so Larry wins, for example, nor even that Larry has most reason to buy a lottery ticket (the odds of his winning would after all be extremely long).

Critical Thinking controls the internal link to educationKeller, Whittaker, and Burke 01 Thomas E., Asst. professor School of Social Service Administration U. of Chicago, James K., professor of Social Work, and Tracy K., doctoral student School of Social Work, “Student debates in policy courses: promoting policy practice skills and knowledge through active learning,” Journal of Social Work Education, Spr/SummerPolicy practice encompasses social workers' "…common with developing capacities for critical thinking.

C Policy analysis is the best way to challenge oppression. This is an independent voter. Themba-Nixon 2K (Makani, Executive Director of The Praxis Project, a nonprofit organization helping communities use media and policy advocacy to advance health equity and justice. “Changing the Rules: What Public Policy Means for Organizing” Colorlines 3.2)"This is all about policy," a woman complained to me in a recent conversation. … be committed to making it so. This outweighs on magnitude: oppression is a tangible impact that affects people every day as opposed to in round fairness, which lasts 40 minutes. Also, in round structural fairness assumes the round is fair to begin with, but that isn’t the case—aspects like race, wealth, and gender put some debaters at a disadvantage so challenging oppression is a prior question.

2 Reciprocity: on balance, comparative worlds results in more fair debates by removing structurally unfair arguments like skep and NIBS Adam F. Nelson ‘08, J.D.1. Towards a Comprehensive Theory of Lincoln-Douglas Debate. 2008.And the truth-statement model of the resolution …We wan to know how the various options affect us and the world we live in.¶

2. Interpretation: the affirmative must defend the implementation of a policy with an actor or set of actors in a plan text in the 1AC that specifies the type of reporter.

21 The Branzburg Court recognized the dangers of privileging one type of media outlet over another "in light of the traditional doctrine that liberty of the press is the right of the lonely pamphleteer... just as much as of the large metropolitan publisher. '' 22 This definitional problem casts a shadow on attempts to apply a journalist's privilege. 23 Unlike attorneys and doctors, whose licenses are proof of their eligibility for the attorneyclient and doctor-patient privileges, journalists need not acquire licenses to gather news. 24 In the modern media age, efforts to define whom a journalist's privilege should protect become especially complex. 25 Exclude bloggers, and the law seems arbitrary; include them, and the privilege risks becoming diluted.2 6

3. Interpretation: The affirmative must have a solvency advocate who defends the aff policy and uses the rhetoric of “right to know,” and all solvency cards must be from that same solvency advocate.

Enter cites from this debate below, with a title describing the argument. You can create more than one "entry" per round, to help keep things organized. You should NOT paste full text cards here, only cites - if you want to disclose open source, upload a document on the next page as well.

IMPORTANT NOTE: The Cites box will only accept unformatted text. Wiki syntax (e.g. from Verbatim), is strongly preferred.

Entry Title:

Current file:

IMPORTANT NOTE: Your file will automatically be re-named on upload based on the provided info.

You can only upload one combined open source speech doc per round - uploading a new file will overwrite the old one.

Computed file name:

You're about to submit the following information:

You must be logged in to create an entry. After clicking "Add Entry", be patient! The page will automatically reload when your info has uploaded. If you navigate away from the page before it reloads, info may be lost.

Note: By submitting to the wiki, you grant the right for the information to be freely displayed, reproduced and archived.